Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence through illness of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting: —

Whereupon Dr. HORACE KING, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:

Charles Mapp, esquire, for Oldham, East.

Timothy Peter Geoffrey Kitson, esquire, for Richmond, Yorks.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Marriage Laws

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will introduce a uniform civil marriage ordinance for Hong Kong and withdraw legal recognition from marriages celebrated under Chinese marriage customs.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mrs. Eirene White): I am not convinced that the measures proposed by the hon. Member would be appropriate in the circumstances in Hong Kong, but I fully recognise the need for some revision of the marriage laws of Hong Kong and I am in communication with the Governor on the subject.

Mr. Brewis: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her if it is correct that these marriages by Chinese marriage custom are recognised in Hong Kong only and not in China and other nearby territories? Is it not time that something was done about it?

Mrs. White: There are very many considerations involved, not only of marriage but of inheritance. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a Government White Paper was issued in 1961. Various representations have been received, and we hope to be able to consider the matter further.

Miss Vickers: In view of the Marriage Convention of the United Nations and also the fact that the Singapore Government have very good marriage laws on similar lines, may I ask the hon. Lady if she will look into the matter and see what can be done about Hong Kong?

Mrs. White: I am quite sure that the authorities in Hong Kong are aware of the United Nations recommendations, and that the whole matter is still subject to discussion there.

Defence Contribution

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much the Colony of Hong Kong pays towards the United Kingdom defence budget.

Mrs. White: The annual defence contribution is £1½ million. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have recently accepted, with appreciation, an offer by the Colony to contribute up to £6 million over the next six years to help finance the building programme of the Army and Royal Air Force in Hong Kong.

Mr. Royle: Could the hon. Lady inform the House if any other Colonial Territory makes a larger defence contribution to our budget here in the United Kingdom? Will she also give an assurance that her right hon. Friend will resist any efforts by any of his colleagues to cut down the size of the garrison in Hong Kong in view of the large contribution that this Colonial Territory makes to our defence budget?

Mrs. White: I could not answer the first part of the supplementary question without notice. As to the second part, I think I have made it clear that we have accepted this contribution because of the agreed programme of building work for defence purposes in Hong Kong.

Mr. Paget: Is my hon. Friend aware that Hong Kong differs from our other


Colonies in that they are poor and Hong Kong is enormously rich, and that this contribution is a small and quite inadequate contribution compared with the expense to which we are put on its behalf?

Mrs. White: I am of course aware that it was suggested by the Select Committee on Estimates not long ago that a contribution from Hong Kong on a larger scale was desirable, but the amount of £6 million had not then been offered by the Government of Hong Kong. It has since been offered and we have accepted it gratefully. It is quite true, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that Hong Kong is in a better position to make a contribution than some other Colonies.

Mr. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Economic and Political Development

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his plans for the future economic and political development of Hong Kong.

Mrs. White: In the special circumstances of Hong Kong, there are obvious limitations on political development. My hon. Friend will be aware that additions to the membership of the Legislative Council were made in July of this year. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for further change, but we shall, of course, consider any ways within the present framework in which the people may be more closely associated with the government of the Territory.
Having in mind the inevitable expansion of the labour force in the years immediately ahead, the Hong Kong Government is assisting the establishment of new factories by the provision of land and other facilities; it is encouraging measures to improve industrial productivity and to establishing further trade missions overseas including ones in Brussels and Washington.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking my hon. Friend for that very helpful Answer, may I ask whether she remembers that we

used to regard Hong Kong as the shop window of democracy in the Far East? Is she aware that it was only four months ago that the right to form political parties was conceded to the people of Hong Kong? In view of that fact, and in view also of the increasing prosperity, there is now a growing desire for a greater share in running the Colony by the people of Hong Kong. Will my hon. Friend say whether or not —[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it right that we should have Second Reading speeches during Question Time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out again to the House that supplementary questions and answers are getting too long. Mr. Rankin.

Mr. Rankin: In view of that fact, will my hon. Friend look with some favour on this growing tendency?

Mrs. White: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks but he will realise that changes were made as recently as last July and I think we had better wait a little longer before any further changes are made.

Mr. G. Campbell: As regards economic development, is the hon. Lady aware that Hong Kong has been particularly hard hit by the 15 per cent. Import surcharge?

Mrs. White: We are aware that this has caused some difficulties in Hong Kong. We considered whether any special measures should be taken to protect Hong Kong, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there would be very great difficulties there, and I think Hong Kong will not be as seriously affected as he seems to think.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, I beg to give notice — —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give notice, will he do so in the traditional way.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to give notice that I shall pursue this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Paul Gobine and Philibert Loizeau (Trials)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the legal advice he was obtaining in connection with the trial for murder of Paul Gobine and Philibert Loizeau of the Seychelles and their subsequent conviction for manslaughter has now been received: and whether he will now establish an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police, counsel, and judiciary of the Seychelles in relation to the two trials of these men.

Mrs. White: It has been decided that this case should be referred to the new Court of Appeal to be set up in London to deal with appeals in criminal cases against judgments of the Supreme Court of Seychelles. Provision for the establishment of this court was made by Order in Council on 20th November last. At present there is no provision in the Seychelles laws, as there is here, enabling the Government to refer criminal cases to the Court of Appeal, but the necessary amendment will be made.

Mr. Abse: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which, I do not doubt, will give comfort to many in the Seychelles and give greater confidence in the administration of justice there. Can my hon. Friend say whether there will be any local difficulties, administrative difficulties, which I gather are a prerequisite before this appellate tribunal can be established, and can she give me an undertaking that immediately on the establishment of that appellate jurisdiction this case will be referred to it?

Mrs. White: We do not anticipate any difficulties. We have had consultations with the authorities, and I think that my hon. Friend can be satisfied that what he desires will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN CARIBBEAN ISLANDS

Federation

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will convene a conference to consider the federation of the islands in the Eastern Caribbean.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I hope that

a conference on federation may not be long delayed. For the present I am waiting for the revised draft federal scheme.

Mr. Fisher: When the conference takes place, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the new Federal Government, if as we hope it develops from the conference, will have sufficient powers at the centre and sufficient sources of federal revenue to ensure that there is not another failure of federation in the West Indies? If as a result of the conference we can get a viable federation, will the Government support it generously with development funds in the critical early period of its existence?

Mr. Greenwood: I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind, but I think it would be much better if I waited and saw the federal scheme before anticipating any conclusions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRISTAN DA CUNHA

Harbour

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a harbour is to be built at Tristan da Cunha.

Mr. Greenwood: Mr. J. H. P. Hawtrey, Chief Civil Engineer of the Crown Agents, is at present visiting the island to report on the feasibility of constructing a harbour and to make detailed plans. A decision will be taken as soon as possible after his report has been received.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the rather special relationship between the Tristan islanders and this country because of their stay here, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that at any rate cash —I think that it is only about £100,000 —will not be a factor to prevent the building of this harbour, which would do a great deal to help the islanders and their fishing industry, on which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they so greatly depend? Will the fish factory which was destroyed by the volcano be rebuilt?

Mr. Greenwood: I know and appreciate the interest which the hon. Gentleman takes in the island. A sum of money has already been earmarked out of C.D. & W. funds, but we cannot absolutely


commit ourselves until we know what Mr. Hawtrey's recommendations are and what sum is involved. Once the harbour facilities and adequate landing facilities are available, I understand that the South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation intends to develop the freezing plant which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Spanish Frontier (Restrictions)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from the Government of Gilbraltar about the inconvenience caused to Gibraltarians and Spanish citizens working in Gibraltar by delays at the Spanish frontier at La Linea.

Mr. J. Amery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the restrictions which have recently been imposed by the Spanish authorities at the Gibraltar-Spanish border; what is the effect of them on the economy of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Greenwood: For the past three weeks travellers entering or leaving the Spanish customs post at La Linea have been subject to considerable delays and to exceptional searches of baggage and vehicles and other formalities. Some travellers have been asked to pay what are apparently new duties on goods taken across the frontier in either direction. Since 23rd November the Spanish frontier gates have without prior consultation been closed for the night at 11.30 p.m. instead of 12.45 a.m.
As a result of these difficulties, normal visits to Spain by residents of Gibraltar for business or pleasure have almost stopped, and there has been a sharp reduction in the number of vehicles entering Gibraltar each day and in the number of daily visitors and tourists. Business in Gibraltar connected with tourism has naturally been affected.
I fully realise the concern caused by these unreasonable difficulties. I have been in close touch throughout with the Governor, and this week I have been glad to have the opportunity of hearing the views of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs informed the

House in reply to a Question on 16th November, the Spanish Government have been made fully aware of our concern. Her Majesty's Government desire good relations with the Spanish Government. At the same time I have reaffirmed to the Governor and to the Chief Minister that we are fully conscious of our obligation to protect the welfare of Gibraltar and the legitimate interests of its people.

Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great loyalty of Gibraltarians and the sympathy which is felt for them in this country? Will he do what he can to improve good will on the frontier?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, certainly. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows of the talks to which I referred earlier with the Chief Minister, who expressed himself afterwards as being fully satisfied with the consultation we have had.

Mr. Amery: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will have the fullest support of this side of the House in any necessary measures they may take to get these wholly unjustified restrictions lifted? At the same time, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in our view, the maintenance of friendly relations with Spain is very much to the advantage of Gibraltar and that these very great difficulties have arisen largely as a result of the gratuitously provocative attitude of his party over both the naval contract and the withdrawal of British units from the naval manoeuvres?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two specific questions? First, was the Governor of Gibraltar consulted before the decision was taken to withdraw from the naval manoeuvres? Secondly, what specific steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to relieve the people of Gibraltar from the difficulties from which they are now suffering, largely as a result of his Government's decisions?

Mr. Greenwood: As the House will appreciate, my primary concern is with the interests of the people of Gibraltar. As I have already said, we are in touch with the Spanish authorities on this whole matter and I think that it would he a pity if any hon. Member on either


side of the House said anything this afternoon which might make it more difficult to reach agreement on this extremely important issue. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to table a Question to me as to consultation with the Governor. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second specific question, I would only emphasise that my primary concern is to protect the interests of the people of Gibraltar. External relations in general are a matter beyond my Department.

Mr. Snow: However some old friends of General Franco may feel on this matter, is it not a fact that the people of Gibraltar themselves have shown no marked enthusiasm for political domination by Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Educational Facilities

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he has for the expansion of educational facilities for those territories which come within his jurisdiction; and if he will consult representatives of these Territories towards this end.

Mrs. White: I recognise the need for continued improvement of educational facilities, especially at the secondary and higher levels. But it must be for the Government of each territory to consider the weight which this should carry in its overall development plans, having regard to other priorities and to available resources. Her Majesty's Government provide a major part of those resources through the C.D. & W. Act. Aid for education is also provided through the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and the Commonwealth Teachers Acts. The Colonial Office and Ministry of Overseas Development, working in co-operation, maintain close consultation with the territorial Governments about their plans.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern at the number of young children at the early age of nine who cease to have any further schooling in order to become domestic drudges for many white masters? Will she not agree, as we have some responsibility for these Colonies, that the very

success of self-government depends to a great extent on a sound educational system, and will she lend her good offices by consultation with the representatives referred to in my Question to bring that about?

Mrs. White: I am indeed aware of the importance of education to any Territory on its way to self-government. In many of these Territories there has been inadequate expenditure in the past under the former Government, but we will certainly do our best to see that some of the deficiencies of the past are made up in the next few years.

Mr. Longbottom: Would the hon. Lady inform the House how far the responsibility of her Department goes in educational facilities in the Colonies, how far the Ministry of Overseas Development comes into the picture, and exactly what the co-ordination will be between these two Departments?

Mrs. White: In general terms, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is responsible for the overall development plans of the Territories, of course in consultation with the Ministry of Overseas Development. As to higher education, the Ministry of Overseas Development normally is in direct touch with universities and comparable institutions.

Mr. Fisher: Since the hon. Lady has introduced a party note into her answers, would she not acknowledge that there is a limit —she will certainly find it very soon, if she has not done so already —to the amount of money available for these smaller Territories and that there are other claims, such as economic development, which are in the future revenue-producing to the Territory? Although I do not decry the importance of education, it must be taken in relation to other demands.

Mrs. White: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to study my original Answer in HANSARD, he will see that the point he made has been covered in it. I would point out that the contentious matter was raised by one of his hon. Friends.

Leprosy

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that medical practitioners and others concerned with the


treatment of leprosy are proscribing the use of the word "leper" in view of the fact that the odium associated with this word has done much to prevent the co-operation of communities concerned and hence the eradication of the disease; and whether he will give an assurance that this consideration is borne in mind by the staff of his Department, and of the Colonial Medical Service.

Mr. Greenwood: I know that some people have suggested that lepers and leprosy should be known by other names. Changes in the English words, however, are not likely to have much significance among those communities where the disease is commonest. I believe that my Department's efforts, and those of the Medical Service in the Colonies, should continue to be devoted to direct attack on the disease and on the misconceptions which surround it, rather than to trying to cloak it in another name.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: In view of all the facts in this case, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remarks made recently by his right hon. Friend —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant must relate his supplementary question to the Answer.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: In view of the use of the word "leper", would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remarks made recently by his right hon. Friend —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot take it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get his supplementary question into order.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Constitution

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what date has been fixed for constitutional talks upon the future date of independence for Mauritius.

Mr. Greenwood: In discussions last February with the noble Marquess, the former Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies,

Mauritius party leaders agreed that the next conference to discuss future constitutional developments should be held at a convenient time after October, 1965. A definite date has not yet been fixed.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the keen desire for early independence in the island, which has a long history of a good educational system and mature politicians? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider advancing the date or giving a target, say, at the beginning of 1966 and advancing the talks to early in the summer of 1965?

Mr. Greenwood: The date after October, 1965, was generally agreed in the discussion in February of this year. I have had representations from the Premier of Mauritius and also from a number of his colleagues on this point, but before we could agree to bringing the date forward we should have to be quite certain that this proposal was generally accepted by all the parties in Mauritius to the agreement reached in February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA

Constitution

Mr. J. Amery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are his plans for a further constitutional conference to agree a new relationship between Aden and the Federation of South Arabia.

Mr. Greenwood: I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 12th November and would only add that I am leaving for Aden this afternoon to study the problem on the spot.

Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we very much welcome his decision to go to Aden and the Federation to see things for himself before he reaches any conclusions? I would not want to embarass him at this stage with questions, but may I have an assurance that he will seek permission to make a statement to the House on his return?

Mr. Greenwood: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I gladly agree to his suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Departmental Staff

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the present number of staff employed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Crosland): 220.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all the members of his staff will be fully conversant with the principles of Parkinson's Law?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would it be fair to say that "big brother" will be watching them?

Mr. Heath: Could the Economic Secretary say whether this number includes the personal public relations officer appointed by the First Secretary? Could he say why it is necessary for the First Secretary to have a personal public relations officer in addition to the Press relations officer of a normal Government Department? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman feels that his image has become badly tarnished in the first 40 days?

Mr. Crosland: The personal Press officer appointed by the First Secretary is not paid by the Government or by the Department. He is drawing no salary or income from Government funds at all. His own financial position is his own personal responsibility. The reason for this appointment is so that we may achieve the object, so frequently announced but not achieved by the previous Prime Minister, of bringing the country and the Government into closer consultation with each other.

Regional Development Studies

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked thte First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is his policy regarding the various regional development studies set in motion by his predecessor.

Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend has arranged for work on these studies to continue.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of eastern Scotland are looking forward keenly to the completion of the carefully prepared plan for these areas set in motion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)? Is he aware that they would be bitterly disappointed if the publication of this plan were delayed to enable the Government to complete their own plans for a central planning board for Scotland?

Mr. Crosland: There will be no delay of any kind. The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the statement made yesterday in another place by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he said that we are pressing on with comprehensive plans for various regions of Scotland and that they should be available probably by the middle of 1965.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my hon. Friend abandon the geographical idea of his predecessor that the north-east of Scotland, and in particular Aberdeenshire, is not a region which needs development? Will my hon. Friend abandon that obnoxious idea and realise that the North-East of this island does not end on the River Tweed?

Mr. Crosland: The Government have the interest of Aberdeenshire very closely at heart, and I have personally the interest of the fishing industry in Aberdeen very closely at heart.

Industry (Economic Development Committees)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress he is making with the setting up of small economic development committees in particular sectors of industry or in the regions.

Mr. Crosland: Economic development committees have already been set up in nine industries and it is hoped to establish them in other industries as rapidly as possible. My right hon. Friend proposes to discuss a programme for future expansion of this work with the National Economic Development Council on 2nd December.

Mr. Lewis: As it has been suggested that bankers will be represented on the


N.E.D.C. itself, can the hon. Gentleman say whether they will be represented on the small economic development committees of industries? Can the hon. Gentleman also say why the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be a member of the N.E.D.C.? It seems to us on this side of the House highly important that the right hon. Gentleman should be on the Council in order to deal with the financial situation.

Mr. Crosland: The second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question relates to the central National Economic Development Council whereas the Question relates to what are known as the "Little Neddies". There is a Question later on the Order Paper on the N.E.D.C. itself. The question whether bankers will be appointed or not to economic development committees for particular industries is a matter for consultation and discussion when any new committees are set up.

Mr. Heath: What will be the relationship between the "Little Neddies" and the Board of Trade? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the original arrangement was that the official representatives on the "Little Neddies" would come from the Board of Trade? Does that still remain the arrangement or will they come from the Department of Economic Affairs? If so, how will the Board of Trade be represented?

Mr. Crosland: They will come from both the Department of Economic Affairs and the Board of Trade, or from the sponsoring Ministry if that happens to be one other than the Board of Trade.

Price Review Body

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the proposed price review body will review the prices of products and services of nationalised industries, such as coal, electricity, gas, railway season tickets, and postal rates, as well as those of private industry.

Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement on the scope of the references to the price review body which the Government are intending to establish. He is discussing these and other matters relating to prices

and incomes policy with representatives of employers and trade unions.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: When his right hon. Friend is considering it, will the hon. Gentleman tell him that it is most important that the commanding heights of the economy be brought under control, apart from any question of the products and services of private industry? It is quite obvious that the Government cannot control the nationalised industries and they should be subject to the price review body.

Mr. Crosland: We propose to continue with the process of bringing under control the commanding heights of the economy by nationalising the steel industry. The Government are certainly fully aware of the importance of prices in the nationalised industries and I think that we would take the view, like most hon. Members, that it would be wrong in principle to exclude any set of prices from the operations of the price review body.

Merseyside

Mr. Heffer: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if, when the regions are defined for the purpose of establishing the regional planning boards, Merseyside will be a region in itself or a subdivision of the north-west region.

Mr. Crosland: I must ask the hon. Member to await the statement which my right hon. Friend expects to make soon on the functions of the planning boards and councils and the areas they will cover.

Mr. Heffer: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that Merseyside has special problems separate from the North-West as a whole? Is he also aware of the statements or reports issued by the planning officer of the Liverpool City Council, which can be of great assistance in relation to the study of the particular problems of Merseyside?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. The Government are fully aware of the special problems of Merseyside and in particular the exceptionally high level of unemployment which has persisted there for a large number of years. On the question of the exact boundaries of regions I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement


which will be made quite shortly by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether his right hon. Friend intends to make the statement to the Press or to the House?

Mr. Crosland: The statement will, of course, be made to the House.

Petrol and Diesel Fuels (Duty)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make an estimate of the implications of the increased duty on petrol and diesel fuels on regional economic development.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. It is not possible to make a generalised estimate of this sort.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this tax is bound to increase disproportionately the freight costs of firms such as those in eastern Scotland situated a considerable distance from their markets? Is not this, therefore, bound to accentuate the problems of depopulation and unemployment in those areas?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. We do not think that this measure will have this disproportionate effect which the hon. Member suggests. It will have disagreeable effects in certain regions, particularly in connection with bus fares, but that is a point on which discussion is proceeding between the Ministry of Transport and the various bus interests affected.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that increased transport costs place the heaviest burden on the areas which are most remote from their own markets?

Mr. Crosland: Increased transport costs place a burden on everyone. It is a very disagreeable thing to do this, but we inherited a very disagreeable situation.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who are the members of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Crosland: A list of the members of the N.E.D.C. will be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not among the list of members of the National Economic Development Council? If that is so, is not it wrong that the chief economic figure of the country should not be on the Council? Does this mean that there will be no financial control of this very important Council?

Mr. Crosland: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be a member. The reason is that the Council will be concerned mainly with questions of physical rather than financial policy, but of course co-operation between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, who will be Chairman of the Council, is a matter of continuous and perfect harmony.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. William Clark.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members seem to be anticipating that they will be called. I called Mr. William Clark.

Mr. William Clark: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather unusual to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluded from such an important body as the N.E.D.C.? How can one have integration and consultation if the Chancellor is excluded from the deliberations of the Council? Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider this matter again? Is he aware that not only do we on this side of the House think it is disastrous but that people throughout the country are absolutely astounded that the Chancellor is being relegated to the rôle of being merely a bookkeeper?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I cannot accept what was stated in that supplementary question. It is not true. We considered this very carefully and we decided that as this was a body mainly concerned with the physical side of planning and with the efficiency of particular industries the right chairman of the body was my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and that there


was no especial need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be on this body itself. I must make it clear that if what is worrying the hon. Member is the question of the relation existing inside the Government between the First Secretary and the Chancellor —which is very important —this should not be established primarily in the forum of an outside body. This is primarily a matter of internal government.

Mr. Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his understanding that N.E.D.C. in future will have no discussions of any kind about matters of incomes policy, for example? Is not he really saying that, as a result of taking the creative organisational part out of N.E.D.C. and putting it into his right hon. Friend's own Department, N.E.D.C. now becomes just another advisory body, in this case an advisory body to the First Secretary of State?

Mr. Crosland: On the question of incomes policy, all the discussions now being conducted on that subject, both with the trade unions and with the employers, are being conducted by a Government team consisting of the First Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour, so that the Chancellor is fully involved in the discussions about prices and incomes policy.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the future rôle of N.E.D.C., I do not accept the fears which he implied. What we are taking away from N.E.D.C. is the actual function of making the plan, the actual detailed study of figures and targets for particular sectors of the economy. We are taking away all that and putting it in the Department of Economic Affairs. But the National Economic Development Council's rôle of consultation while the plan is being drawn up, its rôle of helping to implement the plan, and its rôle as a source of ideas for the Government to consider will continue. Its whole advisory rôle in this way will continue as it was before, and, indeed, we hope that it will be very much strengthened as compared with what it used to be.

Mr. Manuel: In order to remove the doubts from the minds of hon. Members opposite, will my hon. Friend tell the House that on this and allied questions we

intend to carry out our policy and plans, and not those of the Tory Party?

Following is the list:

MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Management:

Mr. J. M. Laing (Managing Director, J. Laing &amp; Son).
Mr. A. R. M. Geddes (Managing Director, Dunlop Rubber Co.).
*Mr. John Davies (Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Shell-Mex and B.P. Ltd.).
*Sir Peter Runge (President, Federation of British Industries).
*Sir Denning Pearson (Chief Executive and Deputy-Chairman, Rolls Royce Ltd.).
*Mr. K. A. Keith (Chairman, Phillip Hill Higginson, Erlangers).

Trade Unions:

Mr. George Woodcock (General Secretary, T.U.C.).
Sir William Carron (President, A.E.U.).
Sir Harry Douglass (General Secretary, Iron &amp; Steel Trade Confederation).
Mr. S. F. Greene (General Secretary, N.U.R.).
Mr. R. Smith (General Secretary, U.P.W.).
*Mr. Jack Cooper (General Secretary, N.U.G.M.W.).

Independents:

*Mr. W. Coutts Donald (Chairman, Management Consultants Association).
Professor E. H. Phelps-Brown (Professor of Economics, London School of Economics).

Nationalised Industries:

Lord Robens of Woldingham (Chairman, National Coal Board).
*Sir Ronald Edwards (Chairman, Electricity Council).
Other members of the Council will be:

Government:

First Secretary of State (Rt. Hon. George Brown).
President, Board of Trade (Rt. Hon. Douglas Jay).
Minister of Labour (Rt. Hon. Ray Gunter).
Minister of Technology (Rt. Hon. F. Cousins).
Chief Industrial Adviser (Mr. H. F. R. Catherwood).

Director General:

Sir Robert Shone.

* New appointments.

Motor Industry (Finance)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has yet met representatives of the motor industry in accordance with the undertaking


given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the effect of the rise in Bank Rate on the ability of the industry to finance stockpiling production during the winter months.

Mr. Crosland: The meeting of the N.E.D.C. on Wednesday next will provide an opportunity to discuss these and other problems.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister's right hon. Friend bear in mind that in this industry it is most important to maintain a large volume of production because that is the way to get low marginal costs and to make possible effective entry into the export market?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir; we are very much aware of that.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREE- MENTS) ACT, 1927

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions are pending under the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Police inquiries are in progress in one case.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Trading Site, Macmerry

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to draw the attention of industrialists to the trading site at Macmerry, East Lothian, where there is scope for considerable development.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): Although this area is not a development district, Haddington has an overspill agreement with Glasgow. In suitable cases, Board of Trade officials draw the attention of industrialists to the site at Macmerry.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the local authorities have done all they can to make the site attractive and to advertise it, and that considerable Government help is required if it is to make the progress we should like to see?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. I understand that this is an attractive site, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Although it is not in a development district, the fact that there is a working arrangement for overspill is the reason why we are giving it special consideration.

South Africa (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Marten: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated value of arms on order from South Africa which have recently been cancelled by Her Majesty's Government, and which have not yet been cancelled, respectively; and what estimate he has made of the value of follow-up orders which are likely to be lost.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): As indicated in statements by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 17th and 25th November, shipments under current contracts, other than those for sporting weapons and ammunition, are being permitted. It is not the practice to disclose figures of overseas arms business.

Mr. Marten: That may be so, but I am asking about arms which are not being exported. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there was an order pending for Bloodhound II for South Africa, as reported in the Press, and whether the value of it was about £50 million? Second, why is it morally right to export 16 Buccaneers but morally wrong to export 14?

Mr. Redhead: The reasons for this decision have been made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend, and I do not propose to embark on arguments about what is morally right or wrong in that context. In replying to the hon. Gentleman's question about the figures which he quoted, I can only repeat that it is not our practice to disclose figures of overseas arms business.

Tourists (Currency)

Sir J. Lucas: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much foreign currency was involved by British tourists going abroad in the last convenient period of 12 months; how much British currency was purchased by foreign or Commonwealth tourists visiting this


country in the same period; and what action he will take to make this country more attractive to tourists.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): In the 12 months ending 30th June, 1964. United Kingdom visitors spent £255 million in overseas countries, and overseas visitors spent £210 million in the United Kingdom. In addition, there was a net gain of the order of £70 million in fares to and from this country.
The Government's chosen instrument for attracting more tourists to Britain is the British Travel Association, which encourages and co-ordinates the activities of the Tourist Boards, the tourist trades and the local authorities in holiday resort areas.

Sir J. Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the British Travel Association that visitors should be informed that we have hunt point-to-point meetings from February to May which give a very good idea of British country life? No charge is made to visitors, entrance is free, one sees a real bit of country life, everyone is friendly, all classes mix together, and they are excellent institutions. If they were publicised, it would do an awful lot of good.

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the British Travel Association is aware of that. If it is not, I shall draw it to its attention.

SOUTH AFRICA (BUCCANEER AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Burden: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the delivery of the Buccaneer aircraft now on order by the South African Government, and on the acceptance of further orders from South Africa for naval, military and air force equipment for the external defence of that country.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made yesterday.

Mr. Burden: As Buccaneer aircraft, which might conceivably be used for internal security, are now to be sent to South Africa but neither Oberon submarines nor frigates could possibly be

used for that purpose but only for external security, will the Prime Minister consider anew supplying to South Africa weapons which can be used only for the external defence of that country, particularly in the light of his statement yesterday that he hoped that normal commercial relations with South Africa would continue?

The Prime Minister: I thought that we had been very fully over this now in two successive weeks, and the statement I made was that we were stopping arms shipments. As regards the Buccaneers, as I said yesterday, we are allowing that contract to run out but no further contracts to be renewed.

Sir A. V. Harvey: There will be general satisfaction at what the Prime Minister said yesterday about allowing the first part of the Buccaneers to go to South Africa, but is it not illogical not to entertain the possibility of sending a second squadron if the South Africans want to honour their side of the Simonstown Agreement?

The Prime Minister: The question of the Simonstown Agreement does not come into this. As regards the Buccaneres, if we decide, as we have, to stop arms, we must stop them at the earliest possible opportunity. After consideration —I mentioned yesterday some of the factors entering in that consideration —we decided that the existing contract should be honoured.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON (TALKS)

Mr. Fell: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will give an assurance that no final decision on the British nuclear deterrent will be taken in his talks with the President of the United States of America;
(2) whether he will give an assurance that, in his forthcoming talks with the President of the United States of America, he will make no final commitment involving Great Britain in the manning of mixed-crew ships of an Atlantic nuclear force.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 23rd November.

Mr. Fell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will try to realise that he is no longer the Leader of the Opposition, that he is, in fact, the Prime Minister, however long we may have to suffer him, and that as such, when he goes to America, he bears a tremendous responsibility for any decisions he might make affecting the future defence of these islands. May I further—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.

Mr. Fell: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that he is no longer Leader of the Opposition but is, in fact, the Prime Minister. After all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, two of my Questions are being taken together, and I was about to ask a short further supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister wish, on his return from America, to avoid the following plagiarism of what Sir Winston Churchill once said of Sir Stafford Cripps, "There, but for the grace of God, went the Devil"?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman thought that he was either funny or clever, but that view may not be shared generally. In reply to that part of his speech which I was able to disentangle as being interrogatory, 1 am aware that I am no longer Leader of the Opposition, and I think that it is fairly generally understood. I am aware, also, that no Prime Minister of any party entering into important negotiations of this kind would feel free in advance to say everything he may wish to say in the negotiations.
Since the hon. Gentleman and all of us had the experience for a very long time past that we could hardly get any straight answers about what had happened in negotiations when we asked for them when the negotiations had been completed, I am sure he will agree with the line I took on Monday in this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I would point out to the House that long supplementary questions and answers deprive other hon. Members of Oral Answers to Questions which they have had on the Order Paper for a long time.

PORTUGUESE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will state his policy on the supply of arms to the Portuguese-controlled territories in Africa.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government do not propose to permit the supply of arms to Portugal for use in her overseas territories.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether arms have been supplied to Portuguese African territories in the past, and what was the extent of such supplies, and can he also say whether there are existing contracts which he is now ending as a result of the Answer that he has just given?

The Prime Minister: In 1961 the then Prime Minister said:
In deciding whether to negotiate a sale or to grant a licence for the export of military equipment to Portugal, we have to consider her reasonable military requirements as a N.A.T.O. ally. But supplies of equipment to Portuguese overseas territories are in a different category and applications in these cases are for the time being in suspense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 19.]
On 31st July, 1963, Sir Patrick Dean at the United Nations, presumably on the instructions of the then Government, said:
We do not supply arms to Portugal for use in its overseas territories, and we shall not do so.
Therefore, there is no question of any unfulfilled contract.

Mr. Longden: In order to eliminate the present uncertainty among exporters and, above all, to avoid double standards, would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a code of conduct to which foreign Governments must conform if they wish Her Majesty's Government to consider them fit and proper persons for the export of British arms?

The Prime Minister: I think that the double standard code of conduct applied in respect of a Government who refused arms to Portugal in respect of her overseas territories but allowed arms to South Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am giving my answer in my own way, if hon. Gentlemen will


listen. Since there was that double standard code of conduct, the decisions of Her Majesty's present Government remove that standard of dual approach.

DISARMAMENT

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there cannot be general world disarmament without Communist China's participation; what assurances he has received from the Chinese Government of their willingness to participate in such a conference, and on what conditions; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I do not consider that the disarmament process could go far without Chinese participation, although it might perhaps be possible to make a start on it.
The 18-Nation Disarmament Conference at Geneva has been working for an agreed programme of general and complete disarmament since its establishment in 1962. I have received no assurance from the Chinese Government about its willingness to take part in its proceedings. As I told the House on 10th November, I have received a message from the Chinese Prime Minister proposing that a Summit Conference of all countries be convened to discuss nuclear disarmament. I am considering a reply to this message.

Sir C. Osborne: Should a favourable opportunity occur when the right hon. Gentleman is in Washington, will he put it to the American Government that if the Chinese Government would drop their theory of the inevitability of war between the capitalist and Communist worlds there could be a recognition by the Americans of the Chinese Government and so we could have world disarmament?

The Prime Minister: It is not usual to say in advance what will be discussed or what will be on the agenda, but I cannot imagine any fruitful discussion of world affairs in the Washington talks which did not bring in the questions of China and disarmament.

Mr. R. A. Butler: How soon can we expect a reply to the Chinese initiative?

The Prime Minister: I think the House would agree that it would be desirable that these things should be left over for discussion in Washington.

SUEZ OPERATION

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an official historian to write the history of the Suez operation.

The Prime Minister: Official histories deal primarily with the strategy and tactics of military operations in major wars.
Students of military history would have nothing to learn from any official history of these military operations, except what to avoid. On the wider question of the responsibility for the initiation of the operations, common humanity would suggest we should not further embarrass the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is carrying humanity a little too far, that he is really too considerate to the Ministers responsible for Suez? Does he not realise that it is time a good many of the skeletons were brought out for careful inspection?

The Prime Minister: It really would be, of course, a rather costly and, I think, long drawn out operation to appoint a historian to do this job merely for the purpose of finding out what the then Foreign Secretary got up to at Villacoublay, because the then Foreign Secretary could end all uncertainty by making a short statement here and now.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Could not such an official historian at the same time write a history of "The 100 days"? Would not this be of assistance to future Chancellors of the Exchequer in how to avoid placing sterling in jeopardy for party political purposes?

The Prime Minister: The Question on the Order Paper related to the activities of military historians. I am not at all certain that anything that has happened in the past 40 days or so will be of any interest to military historians. As to the other question, I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend may be making a statement.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the confidence of Great Britain's European Free Trade Association partners has been lost; and what steps he is taking to restore it.

The Prime Minister: We are very conscious of the disappointment and anxiety of our European Free Trade Association partners over the measures we had to take to restore the balance of payments. There was a full discussion in the meeting of the European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council at Geneva last week. We told our European Free Trade Association partners that the charges were temporary and that they would be reduced as soon as the balance of payments situation permitted and abolished at the earliest opportunity. We also told them that, although no precise date could be fixed, we intended to begin this process in a matter of months.

Sir R. Nugent: Yes, but, while I welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has taken, may I ask whether he is aware that he gave the impression to our friends in Europe that he put Socialist domestic policies before the keeping of British international obligations, and that the best way to restore confidence is to reverse the order and give top priority to British interests and second to his own party interests?

The Prime Minister: I find some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman's argument, because the surcharges, to which we are referring—they were the subject of discussion—were introduced about eight days after the Government were formed, and we had the authority, I thought, of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that it was his diagnosis and his remedies. I was not aware that he was doing this with a view to the promotion of Socialism. He may have been, but he never told us.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the events of the last week or so, does the Prime Minister intend to raise with our colleagues both in E.F.T.A. and outside the general provisions for meeting a situation of this kind? It appears that quotas, for instance, in these events, would have been

quite legal, but not a surcharge. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the machinery exists to support sterling as an international currency, with all the strains that that entails, or does he not think it is time that he looked again at the various agreements that we are party to to see whether there is not some better way to meet that sort of eventuality?

The Prime Minister: I thought that there was widespread agreement in all parts of the House when we debated these economic matters on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech that there was something a little out of date about both E.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T. in that quotas were permitted virtually without question but tariff charges of this kind were not. I think that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said this clearly, as we did from this side of the House. Certainly, I am sure that when opportunity occurs there would be a general desire to reopen the question within the operation of both G.A.T.T. and the E.F.T.A. agreement. With regard to the question of world liquidity, I said on Monday that this was obviously one of the urgent questions which should be considered, both in the talks in the United States and more widely.

Mr. Kershaw: Can the Prime Minister now confirm that he and the President of the Board of Trade have had time to read the Treaty of Stockholm? Will he consider issuing a list of those treaties which he intends in future to honour and those which he regards as scraps of paper?

The Prime Minister: What I notice is the great helpfulness of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite at this and all other times, but again I remind hon. Members that, even after Suez, which was a very controversial issue, the then Opposition rallied round on the measures for the support of sterling without question. Any hon. Member who chooses to doubt that can look up HANSARD for 4th December, 1956, c. 1057.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone looking up column 1056 will find the statement of the Prime Minister, and that the only measure introduced at that time was the 1s. on the price of petrol? That was debated a week later when the then


Opposition, with the final speech made by the present Prime Minister, voted against it.

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of what I said on that occasion and in relation to the increased cost of petrol. In the same sentence I said—I thought that it was column 1058, but I will accept the correction of the right hon. Gentleman—that, as the then Government were introducing fuel rationing, it hardly seemed necessary to introduce rationing by the purse at the same time. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would quote the reference which I made as well when I referred to all the measures being taken to mobilise international support for the £.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER, and TUESDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Finance Bill: Progress with the Committee stage.
Thereafter, on Tuesday, the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolution on the Severn Bridge.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Completion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order.
THURSDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the National Insurance &c., Bill.
FRIDAY, 4TH DECEMBER — Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I note that more than 30 debates can arise on the Amendment selected and on the Clauses of the Protection from Eviction Bill,

whose Committee stage we are taking today. It would appear impossible to complete the Committee stage in one sitting, however late we may stay tonight.
I am glad that the Government have accepted the need for three days in Committee on the Finance Bill. As the Leader of the House knows, we shall not delay the Bill unnecessarily, but it has a mass of detail which will have to be discussed. On that account, I hope that we shall not be expected to take the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order on Wednesday if we cannot reach it by a reasonable hour.
Lastly, I note that on Monday, 7th December, it is proposed to take the remaining stages of the Finance Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put down the necessary Motion so that the Third Reading may be taken immediately after the Report stage?

Mr. Bowden: Today's Amendments to the Protection from Eviction Bill will involve about 27 debates, if they are all moved. It will be appreciated that this is an extremely urgent Bill. We intend to make as good progress as possible. It may not work out quite as badly as the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
Last week, I announced that there would be two days in Committee on the Finance Bill, but, at the request of the Opposition, I have now given three. I hope and believe that that will be sufficient and that we can make progress with the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order.
On the following Monday it is our intention to put down a Motion to take the Report stage and Third Reading of the Finance Bill on the same day.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has the Leader of the House noted that a very important Government statement on the capital gains tax appears to have been made yesterday by means of an unofficial leak to financial journalists? Is he aware that about 20 Questions on the corporation tax and the capital gains tax were put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, Questions which he dodged? Is he aware that a statement of this kind should be made by the Chancellor in the House? Will he seek to make amends by having such a statement made next week?

Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend will be making a statement on that subject next week.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the intended publication of the Supplementary Estimates and when they will be debated? Is he aware that if they are debated too early, Sub-Committee G of the Estimates Committee, whose responsibility is to get out a report on the Supplementary Estimates before they are debated, will not be able to get out a report before the debate? Will he take that into consideration when arranging for the debate on these Estimates?

Mr. Bowden: It is not the intention to arrange for a debate on the Civil Supplementary Estimates until the report from the Estimates Sub-Committee is available.

Mr. Maudling: Reverting to the question of the corporation tax, can the Leader of the House explain how it can be that Questions put to Treasury Ministers on Tuesday, apparently not capable of answer in the House, were answered, apparently unofficially, to the Press yesterday? Is this right? Are people to take these statements in the Press as unofficial and, therefore, unreliable, or are they to take them as official, in which case they should have been made to the House?

Mr. Bowden: I have already said that my right hon. Friend will be making a statement. I cannot possibly be responsible for what appears in the Press.

Mr. Bessell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion in the name of several hon. Members on both sides of the House relating to drunken drivers? Will it be possible for this subject to be debated before the Christmas Recess, so that it can have a greater effect and be of greater use?

[That this House, noting with satisfaction the national advertising campaign being launched by the Government against motorised drunkenness, and commending both the scale and nature of the methods chosen to convince the public of the seriousness of this menace, urges Her Majesty's Government to act further by introducing legislation making it an offence to drive if

more than a specified concentration of alcohol is present in the body.]

Mr. Bowden: I have seen the Motion. There have been changes in the law about drunken driving within the last 12 months and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport last week indicated new ideas for a new campaign to deal with the problem. In the circumstances, we had better see how that campaign works out and talk about it later.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a Motion expressing the thanks of the House on a non-party basis to the efficient Belgian forces in saving refugees in the Congo, including a number of British subjects? If the right hon. Gentleman is able to grant time for a short debate in order to endorse those sentiments, could he arrange for one of the Government spokesmen to be the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)?

[That this House warmly commends the humanitarian action of the Belgian forces with the active co-operation of the Congo Government and that of Great Britain and the United States of America in saving innocent refugees from racialist massacre and terrorism in Stanleyville, and hopes this will lead to a new initiative in the establishment of a peaceful, non-racialist united Congo.]

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the whole House will endorse the action taken in Stanleyville yesterday in releasing hostages, but I doubt whether there is any value in debating it.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Leader of the House explain to us why we are still waiting for the Bill on restrictive practices and monopolies? Will he say why this Measure, so important to our economy, has been relegated by him to the bottom of the list?

Mr. Bowden: We were waiting a long time for the Bill during the last Parliament. The Government have been in office exactly six weeks. However, I think that I can forecast that we shall have a short Bill before the major Bill and the short one fairly soon.

Mr. Sandys: The Leader of the House said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not take responsibility for reports in newspapers about the Government's


future intentions with regard to taxation. Did he mean to imply that the Chancellor had not given guidance to the newspapers on this subject?

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman may remember that what I said was that I cannot take responsibility for what appears in the newspapers.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government this week on the subject of mortgages will result in a great deal of uncertainty on the part of those people contemplating entering into house purchases in the near future? Can his right hon. Friend tell the House next week whether any future legislation will apply to all house purchases and mortgages?

Mr. Bowden: The Government have worked with great speed, but they cannot possibly carry out their whole election manifesto in six weeks. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government told the House yesterday, or the day before—I forget which—that he is already discussing the question of subsidy with local authorities and is discussing with building societies the question of mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask whether the Government have available a Measure relating to the gas industry and, if so, whether it is the intention to find time for it during the current Session?

Mr. Bowden: I agree that there is such a Measure, but it will not be next week.

Mr. William Clark: Will the Leader of the House be a little more specific than his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say when the Chancellor is to make a statement on the corporation and capital gains taxes? Already, there has been sufficient uncertainty and this will be exacerbated if we have the unofficial reports which appeared in the newspapers yesterday. Can the House be told something today?

Mr. Bowden: I will discuss the question of the actual date with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I ask the Leader of the House—it may not be such a controversial topic as one could wish—whether it is the intention to set up a Select Committee on Procedure in addition to the normal sessional Committee, and if so, when?

Mr. Bowden: It is our intention to set up such a Committee as quickly as possible, probably a combination of both, first looking at specific subjects and then a rather more general review of the whole question of procedure.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of recent economic developments, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the problems of the farming industry?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise anything at the moment, but it would provide a very good subject for a Supply day.

Mr. Marten: Due to the discord over the Concord, when can we expect a statement?

The Prime Minister: Not next week.

Mr. Bowden: I doubt whether it will come very soon—not next week, but as soon as possible.

Mr. Buck: Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity to debate the important topic of law reform, of which we heard so much before the General Election? Is he aware that such a debate would enable us to find out what, if any, is the rôle of the Minister without Portfolio?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot forecast an actual date when we shall have such legislation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal coming in that direction, but I cannot give a date.

Sir C. Osborne: How soon does the Leader of the House expect it will be before the First Secretary will be in a position to make a statement on his negotiations with the trade unions with the hope of getting the incomes policy that we so much require?

Mr. Bowden: This one will certainly not be next week.

Sir C. Osborne: This year?

STERLING (CENTRAL BANKS' CREDITS)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): The House will recall that in my statement on Monday I said that the Bank of England was in close touch with other Central Banks with the object of maintaining co-operation. Yesterday evening the Bank announced the result of these endeavours.
Three billion dollars—£1,070 million—have been placed at their disposal by 11 Central Banks to defend sterling. This massive support, the promptness of which we appreciate, demonstrates the vital importance of the strength of sterling not only to ourselves, but to the monetary and trading systems of the world. These credits are separate from the assistance already received which will be repaid from the drawing of 1 billion dollars—£357 million—which we intend to make next week from the International Monetary Fund.
This concerted action of the monetary authorities of the Western world will demonstrate to those who have been influenced by rumours about the future of sterling that their fears are groundless.
A stable currency is the product of a strong economy. The value of these credits is that they give time to press forward with the Government's longer-term plans to strengthen the economy.
The Government intend that we should be seen to be paying our way overseas as well as at home. First, therefore, priority is being given to increasing our exports through measures that are being urgently worked out as well as those already announced. Secondly, a strict review is taking place of the whole range of Government expenditure including overseas defence commitments in order to secure a reduction in the burden on our balance of payments. Thirdly, we intend that resources of skilled manpower and of capacity should be released in order to put them behind the export effort.
The Government are confident that these measures, together with others already announced and begun, will enable us to pay our way.
The new credits announced yesterday are a measure of the confidence which

has been shown in Britain and in our ability to achieve our objective.

Mr. Maudling: This must be the biggest financial operation since the North American loan. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there will be general relief that the international monetary co-operation built up in recent years has been once again effective and that the Government will have an opportunity—a brief opportunity—to repair the damage to confidence done in the last 10 days?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions: first, what are the lengths of these credits, which I do not think is mentioned in his statement—three months, six months, whatever it is—and on what conditions, if any, have they been granted? Secondly, may I ask whether it is still the view of the Government, in the words of the Prime Minister on 3rd October, that you cannot go cap in hand to the central bankers in Europe—as they have now been forced to do—and maintain your freedom of action whether on a policy of maintaining full employment here in Britain or even on social policies?

Mr. Callaghan: I have always taken the view—I take it now—that whatever has happened in the last 10 days is the product of failure to act in previous months. It really is astonishing that the previous Government should have failed to work out export incentives at a time when they had been drifting down and left the new Government to take over this responsibility when their own policies in relation to exports had obviously failed a long time ago.
Secondly, I must say that I think it a little impertinent of hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt this self-righteous air when they have embarked on prestige projects which have imposed a heavy burden upon our—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that most hon. Members have been in the House long enough to know that whoever stands at this Dispatch Box eventually has the right to speak.
The previous Government embarked on a number of projects which have imposed a heavy burden on our balance of payments. They should have reviewed them long ago. We now intend to do


so, and it will have to be done quickly. The rot that they started is reflected in the words I carefully chose, and I used, and I repeat, that a stable currency is the product of a strong economy and that there need be no disturbance provided the economy is sound.
The period of the credits is for three to six months. There are no conditions attached, except one or two minor technical conditions that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will probably be aware of in his experience, that relate to drawing.
As to whether one has freedom of action when one goes cap in hand to central bankers, the answer is, as the right hon. Member for Barnet knows, that that is not a posture which any Chancellor enjoys. It is one which I trust the whole House and country will want to see us escape from at the earliest possible moment. I believe that with the measures which are being taken to review the burden on our balance of payments, the additional incentive that will now be given to exports, and the strict review of Government expenditure, we shall put ourselves in a position where we can pay our way. This will have the biggest possible influence upon our position in the world.

Mr. Grimond: While I welcome what the Chancellor has said about the use of the time we have bought to strengthen our economy and boost exports, may I ask whether he could be a little more specific about what is meant by the phrase that the Government "intend that resources of skilled manpower and of capacity should be released"?
Secondly, is he aware that the Leader of the House seemed to indicate that a statement might be made by him now about the corporation tax? Does he intend to make any further statement this afternoon about that?

Mr. Callaghan: The particular point to which I referred, namely, the release of "resources of skilled manpower," will follow from the Government's review of their defence commitments, including those overseas. That, I believe, will ensure that additional effort can be placed behind the export drive.
As to the corporation tax, I shall certainly make a statement on that as soon as I am able to do so.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he detected a note of disappointment in the questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who, apparently, is disturbed because the strength of the £ has been maintained? Will he be good enough to challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet to say what, if he had been faced with similar circumstances arising out of the failure of the last Government, he would have done in those circumstances?

Mr. Callaghan: I must say I notice that while hon. Gentlemen opposite consistently give lip-service to the objectives we have, they neither support the measures we put forward, nor propose any alternatives.

Sir Harwood Harrison: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that while we welcome his efforts to improve exports, we think that the best way to improve exports is to have happy and contented customers? When is he going to stop his colleagues on the Treasury Bench being rude to so many of our best customers?

Mr. Callaghan: That, I think, is an example of the sort of helpful question we are asked.

Mr. Loughlin: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could say how much of the 1,000 million dollars stand-by credit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Pounds."] The figure I am going to use is the correct one in the context in which it is used. How much of the 1,000 million dollars stand-by credit which applied before the new stand-by was to be used or is to be used to repay the borrowings in recent months by the Tory Government?

Mr. Callaghan: I would prefer to make a full and complete statement on that at an appropriate moment later.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman deluding himself rather dangerously if he refuses to recognise, either in his own mind or publicly, that there is some connection between the loss of confidence in the £ and the actions of the present Government?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that there is some truth in the point that the announcement of the possible deficit for this year did cause considerable shock to others, as it did to me. That, I think, is a fact that cannot be disputed. It has had an impact on world opinion, but the country and the world should judge whether it is better to face the truth of the position and try to put it right, or to go on pretending that there is nothing wrong.

Mr. Carol Johnson: My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall that in the autumn of 1957—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am just prefacing my question—under a different Administration, the country was also faced with a severe financial and economic situation, with severe pressure on the £. At that time there was evidence of large sales by British companies of sterling securities, though it was recognised at the time, in the words of one financial adviser—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come speedily to his question.

Mr. Johnson: This is a most important question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Every hon. Gentleman's question is a most important question to the hon. Gentleman who puts it.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the crisis of 1957 there was one financial adviser who said that although it was anti-British and derogatory to sterling for British companies to sell sterling securities, it made sense in the light of their own interests? Is there any evidence of similar activities by British companies in recent days?

Mr. Callaghan: I have no direct evidence of such activities, but I would say that any British company, or, indeed, any foreign holder of sterling, who sells at present is doing himself a disservice and not a service.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright in his answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), he gave rather vague hints that there were defence commitments

which would be given up, saving, apparently, large quantities of manpower. I must impress upon him that if he makes this kind of vague statement this will cause grave disquiet in many parts of the world and also among our allies. I should like to know, first, why these decisions have been taken and when we can expect a statement. This kind of vague statement should not be allowed to stand. We should know one way or another.

Mr. Callaghan: The words are clear enough, I think:
A strict review is taking place of the whole range of Government expenditure including overseas defence commitments in order to secure a reduction in the burden on our balance of payments.
It is the responsibility of any Government to make a strict review of the actions of their predecessors in these fields in order to try to relate the defence commitments to the expenditure. That is what we intend to do.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the right hon. Gentleman talking about prestige expenditure?

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must remind him that if it is not a matter of prestige expenditure it is a matter of grave importance to our allies and our military set-up in this country. Can he tell us something more definite about when we can expect a statement, because uncertainty is not at all the thing we want in this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his helpful questions. We will do our best to provide him with the information he is seeking as soon as the review has been concluded and the necessary negotiations have taken place.
A strict review of these commitments is now being made, because a country's influence cannot depend upon anything but a strong economy. That is the basis of any country's influence, no matter what else it may try to do.

Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to make a statement about the corporation tax, can he explain how it was possible for such firm guidance to be given to the Press


this morning about how it was intended to act?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman who has had recent experience of administration, and all those sitting beside him on the Front Bench, have plenty of experience of what happens.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: On a point of order. This situation is not at all satisfactory. Back-bench Members have a right to ask for the protection of the Chair. In an earlier remark on the same subject the Leader of the House made the observation that he had no knowledge at all—he said that he was speaking for himself and not for anyone else—of any previous information having been given to the Press. Now we have another statement being made clearly implying that, in fact, some such information was given. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what measures we can take to make somebody on the Front Bench opposite speak the truth?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): In view of his opening statement I assure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) that I have been endeavouring—perhaps nobody has

noticed it—to protect back-bench Members during the fortnight in which I have held the responsibility of the Chair. But the point which the hon. Member raises is a point of argument and of disagreement between him and the Government Front Bench. I cannot intervene in the political battles which I understand take place in this House every day and which have always been so. There is, therefore, no point of order in what he said.

Mr. Maudling: Further to that point of order. It is quite clear that the reports in this morning's Press were designed to encourage people to take certain action on the assumption that this was official Government policy. Should not this be made clear to the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Again, and with all respect to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), this is not a matter for the Chair. This is part of the battle between the two sides of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We might continue debating the Chancellor's statement all day, but I have to protect the business of the House. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to restrict eviction from dwellings and to postpone the decontrol of formerly requisitioned dwellings, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) by way of special grant under section 10(2) of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act 1955; or
(b) by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or Scotland,

which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session extending the period in respect of which the rent recoverable from certain persons is restricted and local authorities are required to make payments to landlords under section 4(4) of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act 1955.

Resolution agreed to.

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after "them", to insert "and in residence therein".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be convenient for the Committee if we discussed, at the same time, Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 23, after "occupation" to insert "and in residence".

Mr. Page: I am grateful to you, Sir Samuel.
May I, first, read these Amendments into the relevant Clause? In the fourth line of the Clause there are the words
persons remain in occupation of the premises or part of them …".
After those words the Amendment would introduce the words "and in residence therein". The effect would be that any person holding over after a tenancy and remaining in occupation of premises would, to obtain the protection of the Bill, have to show not only that he

was in occupation, but also that he was in residence.
The Clause does not say that the restrictions of the Rent Acts shall apply to the dwellings mentioned in it. It sets out by a description those who are to be protected by the Bill, and in using those words defining the persons to be protected by the Bill it does not necessarily follow the Rent Restriction Acts. It does not necessarily protect exactly the same people as are protected by the Rent Acts. It goes rather further and widens the category of protected persons by describing them as those who are "in occupation". Nevertheless, I imagine that it is the Government's intention in the Bill to apply the principles of the Rent Restriction Acts, although applying them over a wider field of properties.
If the words used in the Bill, "persons in occupation", were left without any further modification, they might well include the absentee tenant, who perhaps leaves a few sticks of furniture in the house when he goes without any intention of returning. In the words of the Bill, he may still be "in occupation". If the Bill is to include furnished premises, then the position becomes even more difficult. If we use the phrase "in occupation", it may be extremely difficult to know when the tenant intends to continue to use the premises as his home or when he has left. The phrase "in occupation" might also include premises which are wholly sublet; the tenant may have given up his residence there altogether.
It is quite true that in the earlier part of the Clause the words are used "let as a dwelling", but this is not referred to again in the fourth and fifth lines, and, as the Clause is worded, it is possible for the premises to be let as a dwelling and then to be turned into business premises and still be "in the occupation" of the man who is holding over after a tenancy. He may be in occupation though he has sub-let the whole of the house and will not be using it as his home, or he may have let the house in part. This is the sort of case which I want to remove from the protection of the Bill. I apprehend that it must be the Government's intention to protect those in residence and not merely those who are making money out of their tenancy of property.
Certainly, that was the intention of the Rent Acts, and it was said by Lord Justice Tucker as long ago as 1948:
There is nothing in the actual language of the Rent Restriction Acts, read literally, to deprive a tenant in legal possession of the protection of these Acts by reason of non-residence.
He went on:
.. there is a long line of decisions of this court to that effect.
He meant that the Rent Acts protected the person in residence and gave no protection to the person who had moved out of residence.
In 1931, Lord Justice Scrutton said:
It is a fundamental principle of the Acts to protect a resident in a dwelling-house, not to protect a person who is not a resident in a dwelling-house but is making money by sub-letting it.
He said:
… the right of the statutory tenant is a purely personal right to occupy the house as his home.
I will give two more quotations, because these are particularly apt to the whole principle of the Bill. Lord Justice Goddard, in 1933, dealing with statutory tenancies, said:
Protection of the home seems to be the whole policy and intention of the Acts.
Lord Justice Cooper, in 1947, said:
The keynote of the Acts is domesticity and the protection of the home.
I am sure that it is the intention of the Government to use the Bill to protect the homes of tenants and to prevent them from being evicted, but not to protect them in any other sphere. If on this first Amendment we can establish that as the principle underlying the Bill, then I can assure the Government that my hon. Friends will give the Bill a much smoother passage.
We are prepared to join with the Government to protect the homes of tenants, but if the Bill is to be a sort of spite against owners we will endeavour to amend it. When I say that it should protect the homes of people, I mean, of course, only one home for one person. I mention this because, as the Clause stands, it could protect the two-home man. It was said in one case that a sailor could not have a statutory tenancy in every port, but he could under the Bill. He could be

in occupation of several dwellings and still claim the benefit of the Measure.
The second home, which is just an amenity, should not be protected by the Bill, nor should any homes which are used for summer holidays or occasional visits. They would unless the words "in residence" are included with the words "in occupation." Even if the words "in residence" are added there will be no question of depriving a wife who has been left by her husband, for the courts have time and again held that if she remains in the matrimonial home the husband is still an in-law in residence. Thus, by the Amendment, we would not be depriving her of the protection of the Bill.
There is also a practical point involved. If the Clause is left unamended, protecting those who are in occupation from any termination of their tenancy from any recovery of possession except by proceedings, one must remember that to start proceedings one must serve somebody with those proceedings. If the previous tenant has left the premises and has disappeared, then the owner is put to considerable inconvenience, to say the least, in trying to discover where he is so that he may serve him with proceedings, with a summons in the county court. The landlord should not be required to wait indefinitely when a tenant of this sort has left the premises and who may yet, in law, still be in occupation.
It is comparatively easy for the landlord to know when a man is or is not in residence and, from the practical point of view, if the words "in residence" are added after the words "in occupation" as an additional condition for the protection of the Bill, it would reduce the hardship to the landlord in cases where the tenant disappears.
The Bill should protect the homes of tenants who are threatened with eviction. To that extent, I agree entirely that the right course is for any owner to apply to the court before he endeavours to recover possession, but only so far as he is disturbing a family from its home. I hope that the Government will accept the principle of the Amendment, whether or not its wording is right. I have endeavoured to express the principle involved in it and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I crave the indulgence of the Committee in making my first appearance as Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Over the years I have seen a lot of Parliamentary Secretaries. They have come and gone and I can only say that if I irritate hon. Members opposite as much as most of the Parliamentary Secretaries in the past have irritated me, I apologise in advance.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) stated what he thought was the spirit of the Bill and, in general, I accept what he said. I would put it in a different way and say that our object is to make the net as wide as we can, as all-embracing as possible, to get people within it, but, at the same time, to give a good deal of discretion about what happens to them when they get to court.
Once one starts being too exclusive in stopping people coming to court one is bound to create difficulties, difficulties which the Bill is designed to avoid; extra legal action, and so on. I have a lot of sympathy for the Amendment. Often I have been horrified at the fact that the hon. Member for Crosby nearly always gets his way when moving Amendments in Committee. I do not know whether I should follow that tradition and I certainly do not want to spend a lot of time being fussy about this matter.
Frankly, I do not think that the Amendment makes a great deal of difference. It may help in limiting the cases of, say, the holiday visitor and the person who leaves a dwelling and is not there at all. As I say, I do not intend to delay the Committee by fussing over the detail involved, so I will advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment. Having done that, I realise that I may get into trouble later from the draftsmen, possibly for having led them into something, but, subject to returning to this matter on Report, perhaps with different drafting, I advise my hon. Friends to accept the wording of the Amendment.
We want to get at the people who are living in the home. They are the people we want to protect, and to show that we are serious when we say that this is an urgent Bill which we want to get on to the Statute Book quickly I will, without

further ado, merely again urge my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.

Sir John Hobson: May I be the first to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from this side of the Committee on his appointment and say how much we welcome his appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new office? I have known him for some time, but generally as being concerned with home affairs rather than housing matters. I am sure, from my knowledge of him, that he will not irritate us. We are not in a mood to be irritated and in view of the agreeable and kindly manner in which he accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment, I am sure that he will not irritate us.
If the hon. Gentleman does break any tradition in relation to Parliamentary Secretaries I hope that he will continue as he began and go on accepting Amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who knows a great deal about these subjects and who is so expert and knowledgeable on them. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has dealt with this Amendment, which was intended to improve the Bill.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to extend to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the indulgence of the Committee on his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box. I suppose, however, that his rising in the debate at the time when he intervened perhaps rules out the possibility of my asking the indulgence of hon. Members on this my maiden speech in the new Parliament.
My hon. Friend rose to comment on the Amendment at a time when no back benchers on this side had had an opportunity of putting their point of view. He rose and accepted the Amendment without having heard any observations from my hon. Friends. He did not hear the observations of those of us who see very real difficulties in the Amendment and who do not think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put the matter clearly, because at no time did the hon. Member for Crosby refer to line 23, which states:
… means the person remaining in occupation".


It will be unfortunate, and I would be wasting the time of the Committee, if I continued with this debate if the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench is that any intervention from the back benches on this side is a waste of time and should be cut out at the start.
If that is to be the attitude, there really does not seem to be any point at all in having back-bench Members sitting in Committee. I am not trying to be funny. I just do not see any purpose in sitting here if my function is merely to be to walk through the Division Lobby after the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted, without discussion, an Amendment moved from the other side of the Committee on the ground that any discussion would be a waste of time because we want to get on to more important Amendments.
I see a real difficulty in this Amendment, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Crosby sees it, too. He knows perfectly well that the judgment of the courts on the meaning of a phrase depends on its precise wording, and if there are alternatives they will be held to be restrictive. If, having defined and laid down occupation, we add the words "in residence", I do not think that any lawyer would challenge that the judicial interpretation must be restrictive. That has been said time and time again in cases of interpretation.
I had hoped to declare a personal interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Crosby said that a sailor could not have a home in every port, but I do not think that anybody has ever suggested that he had a home in every port—it was something else he had in every port—

Mr. Graham Page: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I spoke of a statutory tenancy in every port.

Mr. Hale: The taxpayer can have a home in every port. At this moment the Irish Free State is pursuing a substantial Income Tax claim on me on the ground that I stopped for six weeks in the Free State three years ago. That is still a matter of controversy—and, perhaps, of litigation. Again, as a Member of Parliament, I am authorised—indeed, expected

—to have a place of residence in London, in addition to my home, so that I may perform my Parliamentary duties. I can hardly contend that I reside there if, for other purposes, I say that my home is in Hampshire. Others must be in the same position.
The hon. Member for Crosby has said—and I am surprised that my hon. Friend's advisers have accepted the view—that the courts would necessarily say that a tenant who was working abroad and had left his wife and children in the occupation of a residence would, by this wording, be entitled to protection. I appreciate that I am probably wasting the time of the Committee, because my hon. Friend has accepted the Amendment and, there being a narrow majority, I am in a position where I can hardly force a Division against my hon. Friend. I cannot put a view, because my hon. Friend has accepted the Amendment before the view is put. I hope that this sort of thing will not happen again.

Mr. Harold Lever: I do not have even the exclusive presence of maidenhood to justify my intervention. My only reason for intervening is an emollient one. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is worrying himself excessively in this matter. The circumstances he mentioned will still be protected, quite beyond doubt, by the Bill, even though the Amendment is accepted.
In fact, the only thing against the Amendment is that it has practically no worth whatever. As far as I can see, its effect on the Bill is nil, and it guards against none of the anxieties the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) thinks that it does. Therefore, although there is nothing much to be said for accepting it, there is equally nothing much to be said for rejecting it, and I shall be happy to accept it, because it does no injury to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that he had moved the Amendment because he wanted to test at the very beginning whether the Bill was being introduced to protect tenants or out of some sort of spite against landlords. A more ridiculous and nonsensical statement it would be hard to conceive of in relation to a Bill as moderate as this one is. Its plain


and simple purpose, and the plain and simple purpose of the Clause, is to provide protection from eviction. It does not take away any landlord's rights beyond protecting the tenant from eviction without court intervention and, after court intervention, the only change in the landlord's rights is to give the court power to postpone possession—and even that power is carefully safeguarded so as to leave with the judge who tries the case a complete discretion to give immediate possession if he thinks it right and fair to do so.
How the hon. Gentleman thinks, in those circumstances, that he has to test the Bill to see whether it seeks in good faith to protect tenants or is based on venom against landlords, I know not.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I do not want to discuss the whole merits of the Bill, and whether it is in favour of tenants or landlords. I merely speak for the protection of the Government Front Bench. This most reasonable Amendment, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), having been accepted by the Government, one would have thought it reasonable to get on with the next business. Unfortunately, hon. Members opposite, many of whom sat for so long on this side of the Chamber, have not learned, as we have done very quickly, the difference between sitting on this side and on that. I sat on the Government side for 13 years, and was frequently told, "Please do not speak on this important subject"— on which I am sure I must have had so much that was useful to add—"because we want to get on with our business."

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Doughty: Why not? The Government have to get their business through—

Mr. Harold Lever: The Government will get their business. Do not worry.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are not dealing with the question of the Government's business, but with this Amendment. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Doughty: I agree, Sir Samuel. I want to keep entirely to the Amendment. I would only add that whilst we on this side can now deal with the Bill at our leisure, hon. Members opposite who deal with it in detail are delaying the Government's business, and must realise that it is for them to support their own Front Bench in getting the Government's business through.
This is an important and correct Amendment. The difficulty that arises in referring to occupation only is that a person may be in occupation, though living abroad for a short time. If the landlord reoccupies those premises when the person is away, he incurs the penalties laid down in the Measure because he thinks, wrongly, that the person is not in occupation. I therefore think it only right that the words "and in residence therein" should be added. I am glad to be able to support my hon. Friend and, as a result of sitting on this side, to be able to do so in my own good time.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, after "widow", to insert "or widower".

The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment, the Committee may discuss Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Allason: This Amendment, on which Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are consequential, relates to the position of the widower as compared of that of the widow. The Committee will note that by this Clause the widow of a statutory tenant gets first priority for the transmitted tenancy. If there is no widow, the tenancy passes to some other member of the family in residence. This is rather unfair on father. In these days of equal rights the widower of a woman statutory tenant should have the first call on the transmitted tenancy. It is for that reason that we have tabled Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
Amendment No. 3 is slightly different. Here, the wording of the Bill has been taken from the 1920 Rent Act, which first introduced the idea of a transmitted tenancy; that is to say, that when a tenant died the widow should be entitled to take on the tenancy or, failing a widow, some other member of the family.
4.30 p.m.
That method was bound to have demerits, because a member of the family might move in simply to nurse the tenant who was dying and, notwithstanding the fact of having a perfectly good home of his or her own, would be entitled by virtue of having three days in residence to the transmitted tenancy. In consequence, this loophole in the law was recognised in 1933 and in that year's Act it was corrected. I therefore think it better to follow the example of the 1933 Act and use the six months' test of genuineness of occupation by a member of the family.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should like to ask the Minister a question. What is the position of a woman who is living with the tenant as his wife, but is not married to him? Would such a person be covered under the Amendment or under the Clause?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I waited a moment or so before rising to make sure that nobody else wanted to speak, so that I might retain good will. We accept the point of Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 which have been introduced by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and we are grateful to him for putting them down. They are useful drafting Amendments, and on behalf of the Government I am glad to accept them.
Amendment No. 3, however, raises a quite different argument. It would require that any such relative if not a widow or a widower should have resided for six months in the dwelling before the former tenant dies in order to qualify for protection under the Bill. I understand that this condition was introduced in the Rent and Mortgage Interest Rrestrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, because cases had arisen when a member of the tenant's family had come to stay with him for only a short time when he was ill and, liking the house, elected to claim the protection of the law and stay on as a controlled tenant. That was considered to be an abuse of the spirit of the Act and to involve hardship to owners. An Amendment was made limiting the right to stay on as a protected tenant to members of

the family who had resided with the tenant for six months before his death.
Cases decided subsequent to the passing of the 1933 Act indicated that the courts considered that in the context of the Rent Acts, the word "reside" implied reasonably permanent residence and not, for example, occasional visits or even a period spent nursing a tenant unless the relative concerned gave up his or her former home and made the tenant's house her sole residence. We believe that the courts would be likely to follow Rent Act cases in construing the Bill.
We believe that to deny the facility to tenants who may have come to live with a sick relative and given up their old homes but who have not completed six months' residence would be plainly unfair. In a case of this kind, we believe it to be much better to leave to the county court discretion to decide the question of security in the wide variety of cases that will certainly have to be considered by the courts. I refer the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and those who support him on the Amendment to Clause 2(4), which provides that in exercising their power the courts shall consider "all the circumstances".
That, I believe, is the very difficulty that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has in mind. He has posed the problem of a person who does not come within what I might call the classification of the legitimate widow or widower, but who has been in residence for a period of time although not a relative in law. All these are matters which, when a case for possession is argued before the judge, he will decide on their merits. The county court judge will consider all the circumstances before deciding what action to take. In the Bill, we are giving discretion to the courts.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will appreciate that whilst we accept the other three drafting Amendments, for the reasons which I have given we do not accept that Amendment No. 3 is reasonable or right. We consider that the Clause is better left as it is so that all the circumstances of each individual case can be decided on merit by the judge. We regard this as much the better way of dealing with this important but temporary Measure.

Mr. Graham Page: The one point which the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with in his speech from his brief was the question of who is to decide who shall follow on if there is default in agreement about who is the member of the family. The hon. Gentleman has referred us to Clause 2 and the powers of the county court judge there-under, but surely the powers of the county court judge under the Clause are merely to decide whether to grant the 12 months' extension. It does not extend to the power of deciding who is the occupier.
The occupier is defined in Clause 1. According to the Bill, it is not for the judge to decide who is the occupier. Surely, it is necessary to put into Clause 1 power for the court to choose between members of the family. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has raised the point about a mistress living in the house, a person who is not a legal wife but who comes in as a member of the family. There might also be a daughter in the house. As the Bill stands, who is to decide whether the daughter or the mistress is the occupier under Clause 1(2)?

Mr. Mellish: I appreciate the number of difficulties which inevitably must arise, but I put the alternative case. Take the legitimate case of the relative who has come into the home because the mother was ill, who has been there only, say, two months and who has given up her own home in an honest endeavour to look after her parent, as is her duty.
Suppose that because of the speed of the illness, the tenant dies quickly. Does the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) say that in these circumstances the law should be so written that the claim of a person such as I have described would not be considered? It is because we believe that there will be a wide variety of such cases that we consider it right and proper, on the legal advice which we have taken, that the matter must be within the discretion of the court. That is why we resist the Amendment.

Mr. William Roots: The Parliamentary Secretary has, I think, overlooked the point which has been put to him. He has dealt with the first point concerning the period of residence on which there is a difference of opinion, but he has not dealt with the

major point that Amendment No. 3 would give to the court, in the event of default in agreement, power to decide between, say, two or, possibly, three members of a deceased's family who were residing with him immediately before his death. In other words, the court would be given power to make a decision.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give this matter further consideration, because the Amendment represents a sincere attempt to fill what is clearly a gap in the Clause. The proposal of my hon. Friends would afford wide protection and is not restrictive.

Mr. Lubbock: I hope that I am not being dense, but did the Parliamentary Secretary say that under the landlord and tenant legislation the person living with a tenant as his natural wife, but not legally married to him, was deemed to be a member of the family? If not, could he say how the courts would interpret the phrase "any member of his family" as including a person living with the tenant but not legally married to him?

Mr. Mellish: I did not say that. I was trying to make the simple point that we believe that we should give the courts discretion to decide the question whether notice to quit should be given. The Bill gives the judge discretion. Obviously, where action has been taken to evict, the person concerned would put his case and argue it and the judge would have to decide on the merits. This is the sort of instance in which the judge will have to decide on the case as presented. That is all I was trying to say.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This is not a question of merits. Either the mistress is a member of the family, in which case the judge has the power, or she is not, in which case the judge has no power. It is a question of definition whether the mistress is a member of the family or not.

Mr. MacColl: I understand that a mistress is not a member of the family. That is the position under the Rent Act. On the question whether we should do something about that, we have tried, as far as possible, in the holding Act not to extend the provisions which are in the Rent Act. I am not saying that we hold strictly to that in every case, but generally that has been our attitude. When we come to look at the general problem of


rent regulations, that will give us an opportunity to consider this point.

Mr. John M. Temple: I know that the Parliamentary Secretary did not wish to mislead the Committee, but he certainly misled me. He said that the court would be guided as to which member of the family would be entitled to have the tenancy by the provisions of subsection (4) of Clause 2. But subsection (4) says that
the court shall have regard to all the circumstances
in the Clause. It says nothing about Clause 1. There is no interaction between Clause 2 and Clause 1.

Mr. Harold Lever: Are not we talking about two different things? First, there is a splendid reason for treating mistresses properly—I say that in all seriousness—and it is ludicrous in this day and age that the mistress of a man should be without protection. However, that is a separate question. The Amendment does nothing for mistresses or wives.
To attempt to inject into the Clause something which is unnecessary, namely, provision that the court should decide between two competing claims for ownership or possession, is also irrelevant, because all that the Clause seeks to do is to say that the landlord shall not evict whoever is in occupation. It is, therefore, no concern of the gentleman who wants to strong-arm somebody out of the house which of the two people claiming to be the resident and occupier is the one entitled to be so called.
The Clause simply says against the landlord, "If you want possession, you must go to a judge to get it", and the judge is given power to delay the landlord getting possession for 12 months if he thinks it right to do so. If he does not think it right, he can give immediate possession.

Mr. Graham Page: On whom does one serve the proceedings?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Lever: If one wants to serve proceedings, one serves them on whom one alleges to be the occupier. He can sue for possession whoever is there asking for the protection of the Act. If the judge makes an order for possession against that person, he gets possession. But one does not have to decide competing

claims in order to decide whether he should get possession or not.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Or a proper description of the defendant.

Mr. Lever: Yes.
All that the Clause does is to give the court the power to delay possession, if it thinks right, and denies the landlord the right to strong-arm his way in—a method of getting possession which I thought both sides of the Committee agreed was out of date.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary generously sought to meet the point by indicating willingness to accept three of the four Amendments. For that reason, and in response to that, I think that the Committee will agree that we should not if possible unduly prolong the discussion on the remaining Amendments. It would perhaps be argued that that showed a lack of generosity in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's response.
None the less, the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary recommended the Committee to reject, namely, No. 3, contains two points of substance—one what I might call the six months' provision, and the other the one to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) referred to concerning who in doubtful cases should be considered to be the occupier and on what basis the court should proceed in identifying that person. The Government are in a little difficulty in not having a Law Officer present to advise them. I do not think that we should seek to take advantage of that, although the Government might well think that at later stages of our discussion it would be useful if a Law Officer were present.
In these circumstances, I wonder whether the Committee would be prepared to allow the three Amendments which the Government have accepted to be put in the Bill and whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) would be prepared not to press Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "person" to end of line 17 and to insert:
leaves no such widow or widower, then to such member of his family residing with him for not less than six months immediately before that person's death as may be decided, in default of agreement, by the court".


The point which particularly troubles me concerns the selection of successor occupants. I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to commit himself to bringing something forward. I merely ask him to look at HANSARD to see what has been said and on Report to let us know the Government's conclusion. I thought—and I am trying to be fair—that the Parliamentary Secretary made something of a case on the six months' point. I should have been happier to have it in the Bill, but his reference to the discretion of the court carried a certain amount of weight.
I have not had a chance to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead to find out what he thinks, but I should like to put this suggestion to him. If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to say that he will have a look, with the aid of the Government's advisers, at Amendment No. 3, particularly the point about the selection of the successor occupier, and let us know, on Report, what the conclusion is, perhaps my hon. Friend will be prepared to be satisfied with three Amendments out of four and to accept what I am sure would be a sincere undertaking, if it were given, by the Government. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to respond to that.

Mr. Mellish: I willingly accept what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) says and give him the undertaking for which he asks, but on the clear understanding that there is no commitment. On the assurance that we will look at this matter, without commitment, between now and the Report stage, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) would be good enough not to press his Amendment No. 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 15, leave out "is a woman or".

In page 1, line 16, after "widow", insert "or widower".—[Mr. Allason.]

In page 1, line 23, after "occupation", insert "and in residence".—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "furniture" to "except" in line 10 and to insert:

to which the occupier was entitled under the former tenancy or under any contract collateral thereto".
I think it is the view of both sides of the Committee that the furniture and services enjoyed by a tenant should be preserved in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and any collateral contract which may exist, and indeed that services and furnishings should not be prejudiced in any way or, to use the terms of the Bill, withheld or withdrawn.
My purpose is to try to clarify two of the phrases which it is suggested should be deleted under the terms of the Amendment. The subsection uses the phrase, "for the time being". I suggest that it is difficult to know quite what that phrase implies and to what period of time it relates. Does it relate to the period of time after which a tenant has been given notice and during the course of likely subsequent proceedings? I suggest that it would be better described by being referred to in the terms of the Amendment. In other words, that there should be a specific reference to the former tenancy which is enjoyed, or any contract collateral thereto.
Furthermore, there is the word "provided". Here again, under the terms of a tenancy surely reference will have to be made to the furnishings enjoyed, and certainly reference by term, or by custom, to the services which are provided? My purpose is to protect the tenant from changed conditions brought about perhaps by, first, the deliberate action of the landlord, or, secondly, by neglect or oversight. I think that the whole question would be far better dealt with if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. MacColl: I do not think that we are at odds on the object, but we are on the effect. My advice is that the subsection as drafted provides what we all want, which is that whatever is happening at the time shall be regarded as the services which are included in the tenancy. In other words, if, by custom, somebody is using the garden, or putting a perambulator in the corridor, or whatever it may be, it is not necessary to prove any legal contract for that right. It is part of the services which are being provided, and the subsection does what


the hon. Gentleman wants. I hope that with that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The purpose of my question was to discover the time to which the enjoyment referred. Is it during the tenancy, or after the notice of termination of the tenancy? This, surely, is the pertinent question here?

Sir J. Hobson: It is not only the time which is important. As to time, are we looking at the date of the termination of the tenancy? Is it the date of the application to the county court? Or is it the date of the hearing at the county court? While it is right that we want to preserve for tenants what they ought to have and are entitled to, yet there may be occasions when something happens to have been provided out of the goodness or the kindness of the landlord's heart because he has lent the article, say, during sickness. If at the material date that furniture is provided on loan temporarily, the Bill may make it a criminal offence to withdraw such furniture because it happens to have been provided.
This goes very wide, and if all that one is looking to is the fact of provision at a date unspecified, one will include everything, every service, and every piece of furniture, which is so provided, even though, quite plainly, originally it was provided on a purely temporary basis and was never intended to be part of the contract of tenancy or any collateral arrangement thereto.
I accept that it is possible to get an implied term into the tenancy by the way in which the parties have acted, and that a service or a piece of furniture must be provided under, and in accordance with, the tenancy. There may, however, be cases—though perhaps not many—when the actuality is that it is provided, but it would be wrong for it to remain with the tenant when it was never intended to be provided as a permanent arrangement.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: It seems to be rather important to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact that in the twilight world where most of the difficulties with which the Bill seeks to deal arise words have very different meanings from

those they would normally have in a lease of decently furnished premises, and very different meanings from those they have in the terms of a Statute.
In real life what happens in what are called furnished tenancies is that a wretched tenant has to take it as it is. There is no inventory. There is no list of the state of the efficiency of the article concerned. Therefore, if a landlord wishes to prosecute a tenant and induce him to leave, he can take away part of a gas stove and forbid the installation of a new one, or he can allow things to fall into disrepair. He can do that with things which normally would have been precisely defined as either within the tenant's responsibility, or within the landlord's responsibility, but the fact is that they are never defined in such a way. It is a case of, "Take it or leave it. That is the dwelling, that is the rent."
I appreciate the anxiety of those who think that this might bear hardly on genuine furnished tenancies where a tenant was awkward. What this is really intended to prevent is the slow erosion of all the pitiful little services which still exist by such things as pulling out electric wires, and fittings, and dismantling still further such furniture as that, none of which is ever defined in an inventory or in an agreement.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) referred to the Bill as dealing with properties in the twilight areas, but that is not so. As we know, later on the Bill deals with properties with rateable values up to £400 a year.
In the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, a different wording was used from that used in the Clause, which refers to services or furniture provided for the tenant. The 1958 Act referred to services and furniture to which the tenant was entitled.
There are many occasions when services, in particular, are provided on a voluntary basis. Let me give one example of a large block of flats in which central heating and a lift are provided. It is always carefully provided in the leases of those flats, and accepted by both tenants and landlords, that those services are provided, but there are occasions when the landlord is unable to provide


them, when there is a breakdown one way or another. They are not a legal entitlement of the tenant. Under the Bill a tenant would be able to claim continuance of those services because they were being provided for him at the time, although legally he would have no right to claim them.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: What meaning, if any, does the hon. Gentleman give to the expression, "or for reasonable cause"? Surely he is simply fighting for the right unreasonably to withdraw services, since if he withdraws them reasonably he is wholly exempt from any proceedings?

Mr. Page: I am fighting for the words which were previously used and which were found adequate and operated well under the 1958 Act. I see no reason for changing those words now and binding the owner to provide services which had been provided previously on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman say what the position would be if his Amendment were carried or accepted by the Government? Would it then follow that a landlord, who could not take possession of the premises, could withdraw all the services which he had previously provided and which might include a great many of the amenities on which the occupation of the premises depends?

Mr. Page: My answer to the hon. Member is no.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member made his own point. He specifically mentioned the sort of services and he defined them and made reference to a lift and to central heating. Is it really to be open to a landlord, as indeed one knows happens in ever case brought by the Oldham local authority against a landlord, to offer every sort of excuse for delay? I know that there are good landlords in Oldham, and I do not want to make a point generally against them, but, in every case where a landlord is seeking to evade his duties, time after time every argument is put forward—the contract has been sent to the builders; they are going on with repairs and so on. What is the position now in relation to an old tenant occupying a

tenth-floor flat? The landlord is entitled to say, "For reasonable cause I am stopping the lift; for reasonable cause in the winter I am not able to repair the services." My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) has an Amendment to delete the words "or for reasonable cause"—whether it will be called or not I do not know—which I would be inclined to support. But at the moment we are discussing the Clause as it is put and, to that extent, my hon. Friend is perfectly right and this would be a wrecking Amendment. It would enable punitive action to be taken by a landlord, false reasons put forward and delays in services deliberately created until the premises became more or less practically unoccupiable.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I thoroughly agree with what the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said on the contract point which does not need saying again. I do not dissent from the background of what the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) was saying, but I dissent from his conclusion.
Assume a set of premises. Assume a bad landlord, that the furniture provided is not very satisfactory, and that there is no inventory. The tenant is then entitled to the premises let to him as they stand. He is entitled to them in that way. Therefore, the landlord could not in those circumstances remove those items. If a boarding house landlord lets a room as it stands, the tenant is entitled to what is in it at the time, if there is no inventory, and therefore the landlord cannot take it away.
That is why I think it is better to have the words which are in the tried and trusted language of the previous Act. I am not aware that they have ever caused any difficulty or trouble. Better to have it under the terms of the agreement or contract rather than on what is being provided at the time, which is not an agreement or contract, and if it is a very loose contract then it will clearly be what is provided. On the other hand, if someone expressly licenses the use of a particular article—lends a piano, for instance, then obviously the landlord ought to be entitled to take it away, because the tenant has


not paid for it. I do not feel very strongly one way or the other, but I think that is the best course.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Hon. Members opposite keep referring to the 1958 Act. It is true to say that the terms of this Bill do not follow the 1958 Act. The great difference between the two is that the 1958 Act applied only to unfurnished accommodation and this Bill is designed to refer to furnished accommodation as well.
Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) said, the position surely in reality would be this: one would get a landlord letting on the basis of furnished accommodation and providing certain services. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted, when the matter got into court the tenant would have to prove what the terms of the tenancy originally were and whether or not the landlord had committed a criminal offence by withdrawing some of the services and furniture which had hitherto been provided. This is the way in which things work in the sort of area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North and the area which I have the honour to represent. What, in fact, would happen is this.
Once we allow a landlord to withdraw certain furniture and certain services and not be deemed to be committing a criminal offence, we would then have landlords withdrawing part of the furniture and services and when a prosecution was launched against them we would then have them saying, "I am not committing a criminal offence. All I am doing is withdrawing that part of the services and furniture which I provided over and above the terms of my original contract with the tenant." Far for inserting these words as a protection to the tenant, the effect would be, certainly in the areas to which I have been referring, precisely the opposite. I am quite convinced in my own mind that in those circumstances, we would be giving an unscrupulous landlord who wants to evict a tenant from furnished rooms an additional defence to criminal proceedings which might be brought against him.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Quite the wrong interpretation is being given to this Amendment by hon. Members opposite.

It is not intended to be any help to the landlord.
I want to deal with this with sympathy. I am repeating what I said when I introduced the Amendment. I am trying to get an exact interpretation of the terms of a tenancy agreement and to what extent it is included, and, furthermore, at what time the alleged withdrawal of services may take place. I wish to establish that within the terms of the tenancy agreement furnishings and services should be established and it is from the date of the notice to terminate that tenancy agreement that any question of the withdrawal of services would result in criminal proceedings. These are two simple matters which have not been dealt with by hon. Members opposite who have spoken. They have been led away because they have felt that there is some obtuse or uncertain motive in the Amendment, which is quite unjustified.

Mr. Julius Silverman: If the hon. Member says that a landlord should have the right to withdraw services or to remove furniture—

Mr. Arthur Jones: I did not say that.

Mr. Silverman: That is the effect of the Amendment. That being the case, I ask why the landlord should not have to go to court in order to do that. That is all that the Clause provides. It says that the landlord shall not take arbitrary action, but shall go to court for permission. Surely, upon the question of general policy and the desire to prevent breaches of the peace, apart from the question of preventing landlords from taking a chance and doing things that they should not do, this is a desirable provision. If a landlord wants to take control of any furniture or to stop any services it is right that he should do so through the courts.
Furthermore, on the question of obtaining the suspension of an order eventually, I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 2(2), which says specifically:
Where the court by virtue of this section suspends the execution of an order for the possession of any premises it may authorise the withdrawal from the occupier of any specified services or furniture …
So eventually, when it comes to long-term policy and the granting of a


suspension, the court has complete discretion. Why is it necessary to go beyond that?

Mr. Roots: It seems to me that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) put his finger on the nub of the dispute when he directed our attention to certain tenancies of which he had had experience. It is probable that difficulties will not arise in the case of tenancies of more expensive properties. Surely the nub of the whole matter is that if the Clause is left as it stands it provides every possible incentive to a landlord to provide the absolute minimum. He is obviously not going to provide even an extra chest of drawers if he is in danger of being taken to court for a criminal offence.
It must be wrong that a landlord should be liable to criminal proceedings if he provides, gratuitously or otherwise, more than the absolute minimum. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the matter in the context not of the actual words of the Amendment but from the point of view that to penalise a landlord for providing anything on an ex gratia basis will not be of benefit to anyone.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: It is a little unfair of the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) to complain that his good intentions have been misinterpreted, because is was the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) who misinterpreted him. When I rose to speak I thought that all was sweetness and light, and that we were agreeing that we were trying to obtain the best protection we could for the tenant. But it is clear from what the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have said, that they object to the extension of the supply of services under the Clause beyond what is fixed by contract. That is a fundamental point on which we cannot give way.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) quoted the 1958 Act. He quoted correctly from Section 1, but Section 2, which deals with the terms to be included in a tenancy, says that in the case of any

service which was ordinarily provided it is the fact and not the legal situation which decides the matter.
I have been asked at what time the services are regarded as having been provided. It is at the time when they are withdrawn. It is not possible to withdraw a service if it is not so provided. The point is quite simple and plain. We say that during this interim period—and we are not dealing with long-term future arrangements—landlords withdraw services without a court order at their peril, and the services in question are those which are at the time of withdrawal being enjoyed by the tenant. The landlord cannot start getting into an argument about whether or not services are provided under some form of agreement, or about what kind of arrangements there were. When the matter goes to court the court can sort out the facts and decide what arrangements to make. The point is that the taking away of services without the approval of the court is to be prevented.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "or for reasonable cause".
I put down this Amendment because it seemed to me that it would remove another possible point of time-wasting argument from the proceedings in the courts. The people who are most in need of the protection of the Bill are those with the minimum of any formal agreement. In fact, nowadays some of these people are lucky even to have a rent book. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are aware of the pressures which are brought upon people living in the poorer kind of furnished accommodation to leave that accommodation when the landlord so wishes it.
It is an established routine for a gradual, or even, sometimes, a rapid, dismantling to take place of furniture and services provided by the landlord. By leaving out the words "or for reasonable cause", we will eliminate the possibility of an argument which must tend to help the landlord rather than the tenant—an argument which will waste the time of the court because it will invite all sorts of inventions and excuses in the name of the phrase "for reasonable cause".

Mr. Harold Lever: Which court?

Mrs. Jeger: The county court.

Mr. Lever: This provision does not apply to proceedings in the county court. This is merely a defence offered to a defendant who is prosecuted for defiance of this Clause.

Mrs. Jeger: I am grateful for the professional advice of my hon. Friend, but the relevance of the circumstances seems to me to be that a landlord could say, for instance, that for reasonable cause he had taken away a bed—because he wanted to borrow it for his grandmother, who was coming to see him, or, as I have known to occur, to say that he had disconnected the electricity supply because it was not safe. In such a case for some unknown reason the electrician never seems to come to repair the fault.
There are all sorts of circumstances which are very difficult for the tenant but which could be regarded as reasonable from the landlord's point of view. I do not know whether this is the best way of bringing about that assistance to tenants which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and I have very much in mind; that is a matter for the Committee. But the Amendment at least gives the Committee an opportunity to discuss the point.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Lady has mentioned that one trick of landlords is to disconnect the electricity supply and to say that it was done on the ground that it was unsafe. If her Amendment were accepted, would it not stop a landlord from disconnecting the supply even where it really was unsafe?

Mrs. Jeger: With respect to the hon. Member, I think it is reasonable to put the onus on the landlord to prove that he had done something reasonable and for a good cause. I am merely seeking to find some way of ensuring that tenants are not frustrated by plausible and unfair arguments to which it may be difficult for them to find answers.

Mr. Allason: I should be grateful if I could have a little explanation as to what happens on these occasions, because I distinctly heard hon. Members opposite explaining that this was a saving Clause when it came to the question of, for instance, stopping a lift in a block of flats, and that, for that reason, the words were in. We have not had an explanation

of what happens when the lift stops, whether the landlord is immediately fined £100. This matter, however, has not only to do with blocks of flats but also with whether the tenant is failing to pay his rent and bills. The electricity and gas bills may well be paid by the landlord who has to recover the money from the tenant.
If the tenant refuses to pay his gas and electricity bills, then these words, in my view, would create a criminal offence on the part of the landlord. Otherwise, he must continue supplying gas and electricity for which he knows that he will not be paid. This seems totally unreasonable, and, consequently, I think that the words "reasonable cause" must continue to remain in the Clause.

Mr. MacColl: This subsection, as has been hinted by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), is a pretty tightly worded one. The obligation which it places on the landlord is a very firm one and there is not much get-out in it. I quite understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) feels about this, but I doubt whether it would be wise to eliminate "for reasonable cause" altogether, because there is the question of what is so tactfully called an act of God when, for instance, there is a freeze-up of the water supply and when the suply may not be continued.
It is difficult, where there is an absolute obligation of this sort, for the landlord not to have some let-out of reasonable cause. I think it would be dangerous, and, therefore, in trying to keep the balance between what we said on the last Amendment and this Amendment, I would hope that my hon. Friend would feel, having made the point, that she could leave the wording as it stands.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Of course, this is one of the difficulties that arise when we introduce criminal proceedings into this sort of area. I have a certain sympathy with the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn, and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) because, if these were civil proceedings, I think that the onus of proof should certainly be on the defendant. However, when we come to criminal proceedings, it is too strong a thing to put the onus of proof upon the landlord because he is there in the criminal dock and, according to our


provisions, if one is charged with a criminal offence one is entitled to have the case made against one and not have to prove one's innocence. The matter would look very different if we were engaged in civil proceedings, but as the Government have chosen this very savage course, then I think that we must leave in these words because otherwise we shall be going too far against the accused person.

Sir J. Hobson: I am bound to say that I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that one really needs an escape Clause against, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) had said, the operation of the criminal law. May I give some examples? Just suppose that we want to cut off the supply of hot water, cold water, gas or electricity in order to repair the system. If a person has to go to the court in order to obtain permission to cut off the supply and if he has to do the work on, say, a Saturday evening or a Sunday morning, how does he manage to deal with the situation? He would be withdrawing the supply and could not have done so unless he had actually committed a criminal offence, because he had not obtained the permission of the court.
It is said that the court would give such a person an absolute discharge because, in order to do the sensible thing, he had been put in the position of having to commit a criminal offence. Suppose, again, that a lift man has died and that a replacement cannot be supplied. Surely, in these circumstances a person should not have to go to the court, and incur costs in going to the court, in order to do the sensible thing by getting a replacement.
I quite appreciate what the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said, that there will be people who withdraw services when they ought not to and who will try to put forward the plea that they are reasonable in so doing. The courts, as we know, are fairly sensible and would see through devices of this sort. While courts are not infallible, they are capable of seeing through things of that nature.
There is one additional reason which applies, whether the Amendment is allowed or not, which I would ask the

Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider and which I think is a great difficulty. Suppose the landlord is a local authority, a charity or a respectable private landlord who thinks, but is not certain, that he has reasonable cause for withdrawing a service or that the tenant is not likely to pay and who feels that before taking the risk of failing to justify his actions by going to the court it would be safer and more sensible, as Parliament directed, to go to the civil court and get the county court judge to say that what he proposes is satisfactory and that he can withdraw the service.
I understand that as the Bill is drawn a person can only take such a sensible proceeding if he couples it with a proceeding for possession, even if he does not want to get possession, because proceedings of this sort for allowing the withdrawal of services are only possible where someone is testing his right to possession. We cannot, of course, deal with that matter now, but it can be dealt with on Report. I think that it wants looking at and is another example of the speed and, in some directions, the sloppiness of the way in which the Bill is drafted in that we are putting people in a position where they have either to risk committing a criminal offence or seeking possession when they do not want it at all.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In my opinion, these words ought to remain in the Clause, but only if it is quite clear that the onus of proving that the cause is reasonable rests upon the defendant and is not fixed upon the prosecution. I reach that conclusion for these reasons. In the first place, it is suggested that there is something wrong in bringing in a criminal sanction at all. I would suggest to the Committee that if we do not bring in a criminal sanction then there is no sanction at all. What then would happen?
Supposing that we did not bring in a criminal sanction at this time, then anyone could withdraw services leaving, presumably, the tenant in the absence of the services to bring some sort of proceedings, by way of injunction or something of that kind, to restore them. This may take a long time and in the meantime the tenant would be without the service. The only way in which we can exercise such a sanction at all and prevent services


from being withdrawn without reasonable cause is by providing a quick sanction, and I cannot see how we can do that except in the method provided by the Bill.
The next question is, why should the onus rest upon the defendant? It should rest upon the defendant because it is he who creates the situation which requires the intervention of the court. If he wishes to do it lawfully, he can go to the court and obtain an order for it. If he decides to take the law into his own hands and to do it without an order from the court, then this Clause allows him to do so in certain defined circumstances and, additionally, if he can satisfy the court that what he did was done for reasonable cause.
I cannot see why the onus for proving the absence of reasonable cause should depend on the prosecution, and when my hon. Friend replies to the debate I hope that he will explain who the prosecutor will be, who institutes the proceedings and who seeks to enforce the sanction. If the tenant has to do it on his or her own initiative and at his or her expense this would be an intolerable burden to a great many tenants. I should like it made absolutely clear that the prosecution would rest with the local authority or some authority of that kind.

5.30 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: I hope that this may be a helpful intervention. Is not the drafting of the Clause such that what is provided is an exception which would be in the knowledge of the defendant? Under the ordinary principles of law, the defendant would have to prove that he either had a warrant authorising him "made in" proceedings or that he had reasonable cause to withdraw the service. As the matter stands, the burden in summary proceedings would be on the landlord to show that he had one or the other to justify his act.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If it is clear that the onus of proving good cause lies on the landlord, I am content. That is where it should be.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: In reading the Clause, I had assumed that the responsibility would be on the tenant to take proceedings and to prove that the

landlord had acted wrongly. In many cases in my constituency landlords have disconnected the electric supply or the water supply. They have carried out acts of this kind to intimidate tenants. For that reason, I was very much concerned about the wording of the Clause and I was inclined to support my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) in her Amendment. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could make the point absolutely clear because, if it is to be the responsibility of the tenant, a great deal of time and expense will be involved in getting proof and it will operate unfairly against tenants.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) need worry about that. It is always the job of the police to prosecute when there is a breach of the law.

Mrs. Butler: It would be very time-wasting for the police to have to act in this way.

Mr. Hale: Did I understand my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to say that the police always prosecute?

Mr. Paget: No.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry. I said the police can always prosecute.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It would be better if hon. Members addressed their remarks to the Chair and not to each other.

Mr. Hale: We are in Committee. Am I to ask the Chair to tell me what an hon. Member has said when I do not hear it? May I not exercise the normal indulgence and ask the hon. Member to repeat it?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) knows that it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to give way to other hon. Members, but if another hon. Member does not give way the hon. Member who wishes to intervene must remain in his seat. Otherwise we shall have a state of affairs in which we cannot conduct our business in an orderly manner.

Mr. Julius Silverman: On a point of order. The specific point about who shall prosecute is dealt with in the next Amendment which I believe is being selected, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans) and myself.

The Temporary Chairman: If that is so, perhaps the Committee will be prepared to let the point rest until we come to that Amendment.

Mr. Paget: Suppose a landlord does not pay an electricity bill. What then is the position? Is there an offence or is there not?

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am sure the Committee is full of sympathy for the point which the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) wishes to establish. It seems quite clear that the onus of proof is on the landlord to show that he had reasonable cause. It has to be remembered that the standard of proof required in those circumstances under our law is on a balance of probabilities and not on a standard of proof accepted from the prosecution. Perhaps that might help the hon. Lady in clearing her mind on the point. It seems quite clear from the wording that the onus is firmly placed on the landlord.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Albert Evans: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert:
For this purpose the local authority shall also have the power to institute such summary proceedings".
We take the view that the power that this Amendment would give to the local authority is essential if the main purpose of the Bill is to be implemented. Without some power to prosecute other than that which resides in the tenant the main purpose of the Bill would not be achieved. We must remember that we are thinking here mainly of a type of tenant who is not well qualified to pursue his purpose in the county court. The Bill covers a wide range of different types of tenant. Some tenants are in houses of up to £400 rateable value. They

would be well advised to go to the county court to initiate proceedings themselves, but most of those who suffer under what we are trying to deal with are illegally and forcibly turned out of their homes and it is difficult for them, as they are not qualified or in a position to claim their rights under the law.
It is, therefore, not sufficient to leave the question of initiation of proceedings in the county court with the tenant. It has been mentioned that as this is a criminal offence the police could prosecute. I take the view that the police, at least in the Metropolitan area, have more than enough to do with serious criminal matters and traffic matters to be able to cope adequately with the kind of case we have in mind. I doubt if one-tenth of the cases which should be matters for criminal proceedings under the Bill would be handled effectively by the Metropolitan police. Generally, if such cases are brought to their notice they do not wish to know about them.
I have found time after time that the police will say, "We are sorry, but our jurisdiction does not run inside a habitation", and they refuse to entertain responsibility inside a dwelling. Other London Members, and those who represent great urban centres, know that the police have more than enough to do without dealing with the kind of rough treatment which tenants get in their homes. It is not sufficient to rely on the police to institute proceedings in these cases. If the Bill is to be effective we must give this power to initiate proceedings to the local authority.
Some of my legal friends, and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary, may tell me that already local authorities have this power under a previous Act. If so, that will be a reassurance to me, but I think it would be better for the purposes we have in mind, to prevent atrocious evictions taking place, to state specifically that the local authority has power to initiate proceedings. Local authorities have a responsibility. They are very much a party to these proceedings. The accommodation of homeless families is a direct, trying and anxious duty of local authorities, so they are involved. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary sees the sense of incorporating in the Bill the words on the Notice Paper.

Mr. David Weitzman: This is a very good Amendment if it would carry out the object it is intended to carry out. It says:
For this purpose the local authority shall also have the power to institute such summary proceedings.
Local authorities already have the power. Everybody has the power. I could understand the Amendment if it said, "It shall be the duty of the local authority to institute such summary proceedings". Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans) would agree to word the Amendment in such a way as to place a duty on local authorities.

Mr. Julius Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans) has moved an extremely important Amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I take up a little time. I know that he is anxious to make progress. This is extremely important, because we want to know who has the power to prosecute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Everybody has."] It is all very well saying, "Everybody has", but who will prosecute? Either it should be clearly drawn to the attention of local authorities that they have this power as local authorities, not merely in the same way as everybody has the right to prosecute, or I am prepared to accept the suggestion that the power should be given to local authorities not merely as a power but as an obligation, provided that it does not take away the right of the person involved to launch the prosecution.
If the local authority does not prosecute, who will? In most cases the person aggrieved probably hates the sight of a court and will not take action. It is very doubtful whether the police will be moved to take action. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases the duty will rest upon the local authority. Unless the duty is specifically given to local authorities, either by words in the Statute or by some separate instructions, the Measure may be almost ineffective, because, although the power to take prosecutions is given, there will not be any prosecutions. I therefore hope that we shall have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that he is prepared to consider this matter.

Mr. Julian Snow: As a layman representing a rural constituency, I want to say that I very much support the words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). The constitution of many rural district councils is such that the interests of occupiers of agricultural cottages are frequently dominated by a certain political domination on the councils, namely, the farmers. I do not wish to introduce any contentious note. I merely state as a fact that it would be as well if the local authority were placed under a duty to institute proceedings.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans) will understand that I as a London Member have every sympathy and support for what he has in mind. The question is whether we can ensure that local authorities carry out the duty which I think is already imposed upon them. My hon. Friend wants something written into the Bill to bring home to local authorities the fact that the care and protection of tenants, and if necessary the institution of proceedings in that regard, is one of their functions. My hon. Friend asks us to add certain words giving local authorities power to institute summary proceedings. It is not necessary to add words, because local authorities already have the power under Section 276 of the Local Government Act, 1933. Local authorities have power now to do just the sort of thing my hon. Friend asks them to do.
It can be said that there are several precedents in rent legislation for giving explicit powers to local authorities to undertake prosecutions. These precedents can usually be distinguished on the ground of doubt whether the powers under Section 276 were sufficient to cover prosecutions where there was no obvious and plain element of public as opposed to private good. In the present case, I am advised that the consequences of an eviction are of such sufficient public concern to a housing authority, for example, which is liable to provide the evicted with alternative accommodation, for the powers of Section 276 to be available.
The key is this. Even with these powers and even if such words as these were written in, it would be largely


dependent upon the sort of local authority we are dealing with. There are some local authorities today—I will not mention any by name which have certain powers under existing legislation but which have not used them and do not intend to use them to build houses for people to live in. By writing in some words it does not necessarily follow that overnight the bad local authority will be made into a good one. To a large extent it is the responsibility of individual Members of Parliament to make certain that local authorities do what they have been elected to do. I know that most of my hon. Friends do their best to ensure that local authorities do the sort of things for which they have been elected.
I give my hon. Friend this assurance. My right hon. Friend the Minister is very anxious to ensure that all local authorities understand the purpose and the meaning of the Bill and what it is all about. We undertake to bring it to their attention and do all we can to remind them of their existing powers. My hon. Friends cannot ask us to write something into a Bill when, as we understand it, there are existing powers. With that assurance I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that I am with him. If local authorities think it is necessary to protect a tenant who is bewildered, worried and frightened by courts, I understand that. I represent many thousands of such people to whom the very word "court" is so frightening that they will take almost any action to avoid going there. I recognise that local authorities can and should stand up for people, but they already have the power under the Section I have named. We undertake to bring home to local authorities that it is the obvious right and duty of every local authority to protect the people for whom they have an interest.

Mr. Albert Evans: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told the Committee that we cannot ask him to write these words in. That is just what we are doing. My hon. Friend spoke sympathetically. He said that the main point was that local authorities should be aware of their duties and enforce these proceedings under the power given to them in the Local Government Act, 1933. I accept that. I suspected that it was so. My hon. Friend

will agree that the circular which he will send out—in very strong terms, I am sure, and in plain cockney language—may be helpful. The Amendment does not deal with the idea of making it mandatory upon the local authority to institute proceedings. That is not in the Amendment. If anybody seeks to get such words into the Bill, they must proceed in their own way.

Mr. Mellish: Even when a local authority has that power, how can one force the local authority to take the legal action that my hon. Friend wishes if the authority decides it does not want to do so? In what way does writing words into a Bill make an authority take action?

Mr. Evans: When my hon. Friend interrupted I was dealing with the wish of some of my hon. Friends to make it mandatory upon local authorities. I repeat that that is not in the Amendment. If any hon. Member seeks to make this provision mandatory, he must act in his own way. I am not now dealing with that. My hon. Friend asked me how by inserting these words we make the local authority carry out its duty. It might be some help.

Mr. Mellish: Why?

Mr. Evans: I will tell my hon. Friend why. Why do so many hon. Members forget that when we are dealing with a local authority we are dealing with 30, 40, 50 and sometimes 60 councillors in each borough? When they take up these cases of evictions we want them to be aware of the fact that the responsibility rests upon the local authority concerned and that the local authority has the power to intervene and protect the tenant. These proposed words may not be legally essential, but they would help people in responsible positions on local authorities to realise that they have a part to play in making the main provisions of the Bill effective.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: There is an additional point to be borne in mind, which is that the purpose of the Bill is to protect tenants. I have been surprised at the number of tenants who have come to me carrying copies of the Bill which they have studied. If these words are written into the Bill they will enable tenants to appreciate that local authorities


can initiate proceedings on their behalf. It is not only the members and officers of local authorities who have to be reminded of this fact. It is surely useful for tenants, who may be in difficulty and may not know which way to turn, to be able to see in the Measure that they can get their local authority to act on their behalf.
Although this may not be the best way of doing it, there should be some means of enabling tenants to find this protection in the Bill without having to refer to previous legislation.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made a reasonable reply and I had not intended to make any further observations. This observation will be brief. Thinking matters over since my hon. Friend's reply I have one worry. It is this. Part of the failure of the Rent Acts was due to this referential legislation which made it almost impossible for any competent solicitor to spend sufficient time to ascertain what the law was in relation to any tenant at any particular time.
My hon. Friends who support this Amendment say, "Shove it in the Bill". The argument used against me on the first Amendment was, "The words do not make any difference." In that case, why not add them? Some local authorities may have doubts and they should have a reminder to advise them of what the Minister thinks the Bill means. But that will not be binding on any court before which they seek to bring proceedings. What possible objection can there be to the words? The word "also" is used. There is no omission of any other prosecutor. The words merely make it plain that a progressive local authority shall be able to perform its duties.
When an unhappy tenant on a Sunday night is faced with the necessity to find out what his rights are, it will not be easy for him to get this 4d. or 6d. Bill, whatever the price is. It will still be difficult for him to find Section 275(3) of the relevant Act and get advisers to ascertain if that Section applies to an Act which has been passed subsequently. There is a strong case for accepting this important Amendment which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary accepts in principle but which he is advised, on the whole, may be supererogatory.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I am not concerned with the legal arguments. They always annoy me. I want to deal with the facts. A person may complain that his landlord has cut off the electricity or has shut the lavatory which happens to be the only one in a house in multi-occupation. The tenants cannot get into the lavatory and have to use a public convenience. It is true that they can go to the local authority and complain, but I know from my 40 years' experience of local authority work that although one can go to the medical officer of health, very often there is no prosecution.
All that my hon. Friends say is that they want this safeguard written into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says that local authorities already have the necessary power. All I am asking is that the local authorities shall be told to exercise their power and that we shall be able to go to a local authority and say, "You have this power. Will you please exercise it?"
In his Second Reading speech the Minister referred to certain local authorities. We know that some are good and some are bad, and I want all local authorities to be told specifically what they should do in given circumstances. So long as they do what they ought to do, I shall be happy.

Mr. Harold Lever: I only intervene because I am provoked by this habit of lawyers intervening to make comments upon legal problems. I know it is tedious and unhelpful, but let me offer to my hon. Friends a lawyer's comment. In general, I am opposed to adding words to a Bill which are clearly unnecessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) did not realise that I was supporting him on the first Amendment, which I thought was pointless and should not have been accepted. To repeat a power which local authorities and, indeed, all citizens have to prosecute for these offences adds nothing to the protection of a tenant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Herbert Butler) said something with which I sympathise. He wants to ensure that local authorities are compelled to take action. It would be necessary to consult some of these tedious lawyers and draw words that would place a legal obligation upon a local authority


to prosecute. The question is, who would compel the local authority to do so? It would be necessary to start mandamus proceedings against the local authority to compel it to observe its duty under the obligation. Rather than bring mandamus proceedings it would surely be better to bring prosecution proceedings in the local court.
I suggest that if the Minister gives us an assurance that he will ensure by administrative means that what my hon. Friend reasonably urges should come about, we would be satisfied to have the Amendment withdrawn. Rather than redraft the Amendment or put in otiose words, it would be better to have an explicit assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that local authorities do their duty under the powers contained in the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: I repeat that no hon. Member is more keen than I or my right hon. Friend the Minister to see that local authorities carry out the duties imposed upon them by various Acts of Parliament, with particular reference to housing. I am engaged in visiting every one of the Greater London boroughs, and everywhere I go I tell people that they must get on more quickly with their housing programmes and look after their tenants. If I thought that by writing these words into the Bill some of these local authorities would be more efficient than they have been before I would, of course, agree to the addition of these words. But, as we understand the law, local authorities already have the power.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) said that a constituent had brought to her a copy of the Bill and that if she could only have read in the Bill that local authorities have this power, she would have been happier. I have a suspicion that her constituent must have been a lawyer. What is much more important for her constituents and for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans) is that circulars should be issued from the town hall telling them in simple, ordinary language what their rights are, informing them how they can have those rights put into practice, and by setting up citizens' advice bureaux able to give them all the necessary facilities.
6.0 p.m.
I cannot say any more clearly than that we undertake to make known to local authorities the intentions of this Measure. We will make known to local authorities the powers that they already have. And everybody knows that we cannot tell local authorities that they must prosecute people—we can only remind them that they have the powers so to do. The debate has been worthwhile from that point of view. It will bring home their duties to those local authorities which do not do what they ought to do. By writing words into the Bill at this moment I do not think that we can change the hearts of local authorities. I mention no political party. It does not necessarily follow that all is bad on the opposite benches. We on this side know of bad local authorities too. The time has more than arrived when we should remind local authorities of their duties in this matter. We intend to do that, and I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Albert Evans: I am somewhat disappointed with my hon. Friend. I thought that he would be the last person to seek refuge behind the legal position. I thought that he would have seen the common sense purpose behind the Amendment, but as our reasoning has not penetrated to him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert:
(4) An owner shall be deemed to have enforced his right to recover possession for the purposes of this section if he or his servant or agent enters forcibly upon the premises without due warrant of law and takes possession thereof or enters and takes possession thereof without the consent of the occupier or enters and takes possession thereof with such consent which has been obtained by force, fear or fraud but not otherwise; and in particular a person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section not to have enforced his right to recover possession if he has entered and taken possession in the reasonable belief that the occupier has previously given up possession.
We have listened with fascination from this side of the Committee to the disputations of the Government and their supporters on the last Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the last two.

Sir J. Hobson: Yes, the last two. We thought that we ought not to trespass in those disputations, and least of all raise any legal point. We do not overlook that these matters vitally affect many tenants and ordinary people, and yet they have to be litigated in the end through the courts of law. Therefore it is very important that we should get the drafting of an Act of Parliament right so that it is sensible and operates in the way which is intended.
Lord Justice Scrutton once said that he wished that he could order draftsmen of Rent Acts and all legislators who have passed them to pay all the costs of all the proceedings in the courts where they had been litigated. It is with the object of obviating argument in court in summary proceedings under Clause 1 that I have put down the Amendment which I hope will help to define "enforcing" the right. The principal operation of Clause 1 is to create a criminal offence against anybody who enforces against the occupier the right to recover possession without an order of the court.
I suggest that the expression
… shall be deemed to have enforced his right
requires clarification. First of all, I assume that it means something more than forcible entry, because if that is all it means it would be insufficient protection for tenants whose landlords were trying to evict them without going to the court.
If one peaceably enters premises and takes possession of them that is not forcible entry. If one finds a door or a window open and enters, that is not forcible entry. If one induces a person occupying the premises to come out of the premises and then one goes into the premises and excludes the former occupier, that also is not a forcible entry. I assume that the Government intend something wider than forcible entry to be covered by the Clause.
If this is so it will open the whole field of peaceable resumption of possession and it seems wide indeed that there should be no definition of circumstances in which an individual by peaceable reentry into possession has or has not committed a criminal offence. Many people and local authorities, good or bad, will have to make up their minds whether

it is necessary to go to all the expense of going to court. Landlords, good or bad, charitable or indifferent, will be in the position of having to take a trip to the county court to avoid having to go to the court of summary jurisdiction.
I have tried to the best of my ability to define what is an offence. I have included in drafting the Amendment, firstly, forcible entry without due warrant of law, and secondly a peaceable entry without the consent of the occupier. It would be a criminal offence under the Bill if anybody without consent of the occupier repossessed himself of the premises. Thirdly, I have included peaceable entry with the consent of an occupier where that consent has been obtained by force, fear, or fraud. If anybody intimidates an occupier to give consent he should not be entitled to rely on that consent. Equally, if by forcible intimidation or fraud he induces the occupier to go out of occupation or to give consent to the landlord or owner to resume possession, the owner should not be entitled upon that basis to say that consent has been given and that he has not committed a criminal offence.
I respectfully suggest to the Committee, however, that there are certain circumstances which ought to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. There is a series of circumstances where the occupier may have flitted. He may have gone away and the landlord may not be clear whether or not he has gone permanently. If he is uncertain, he ought to take proceedings in the county court to get an order for possession although he may be in considerable difficulties if he cannot trace the defendant or serve him. This is a difficulty which is not dealt with in the Bill at all.
Be that as it may, let us assume that an owner has every reason for thinking that a tenant has abandoned occupation and residence and has gone away. Is it to be said in those circumstances that he must embark upon all the trouble of taking out proceedings in the county court, going before a judge, and occupying the time of the court before he can safely take possession of the premises?
I should have thought it only sensible to provide that if an owner has reasonable grounds for believing that an occupier has given up possession, left the premises and gone away, then that


should be a defence to a criminal charge that he has enforced his right to possession against the occupier. As the Bill stands, if, despite that basis of reasonable knowledge and the fact that he had every ground for thinking that the tenant had gone away, it should turn out that the tenant intended to return and had kept the key and thereby had technically maintained his occupation, the owner who had resumed his possession in those circumstances would have committed a criminal offence.
We have put down the Amendment for those reasons, in order that magistrates and their clerks, who may not be very experienced in the niceties of re-entering into possession, the niceties of forcible entry and the various other matters with which landlords and those who advise landlords and tenants may well be familiar, may have a clear understanding of what the Clause means. Neither the ordinary magistrate's court nor the ordinary citizen understands these nice points, and it is essential to clarify exactly the extent and nature of the criminal offence which many people may be put in peril of committing unless we make the meaning plain.

Mr. Harold Lever: The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has urged that, on grounds of simplicity, we should replace perfectly simple and clear language dealing with a perfectly simple and clear situation by language which in its complexity and obscurity is many times as complex and obscure as the simple expression it is designed to replace.
Virtually the only sensible argument in favour of what he has proposed is that a landlord might in some circumstances find that a tenant had "flitted" and might have difficulty in serving proceedings on him. This is a quite separate matter. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the Bill does not cope adequately with the situation where a person whom it is sought to serve with proceedings cannot readily be found, let him put down an Amendment entitling the landlord to nail a notice on the door, post a notice through the letter box by recorded delivery, or something like that. That will be quite simple, and no one will object. On the other hand, to argue that, because of that difficulty, we ought to cloud what is essentially clear by the

insertion of this Amendment is absolutely wrong.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to attach no weight at all to the words "against the occupier". Merely to go into abandoned premises, honestly believing them to be abandoned, premises where there is no one in occupation, is not an offence under the Clause. It is an offence to enforce the right against the occupier, a separate matter. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman complains that, sometimes, one cannot serve proceedings because the occupier has gone, then he will have an opportunity on the Report stage to propose a simple provision to cover the service of someone who has gone. I do not think that we need it now. The same difficulty arises when one wishes to proceed for debt or to enforce any right if the person one wants to enforce it against has vanished. There are certain difficulties, and the courts already have a procedure apt for dealing with them.
The words as they stand could not be simpler. Unfortunately, in this half of the century, a landlord can by physical means, by violence if necessary, and without going to a court, put out a tenant when the tenancy has been brought to an end in circumstances which, in many cases, are abhorrent to the good sense and morals of everyone on both sides of the Committee. All the subsection says is that one may not enforce that right, and the reason is that there will shortly be legislation brought before the House of Commons—without much doubt, it will pass the House of Commons, with the support of both sides—which will abolish a right which is an anachronism in the latter half of the twentieth century.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) will remember that this is a penal Clause and, being a penal Clause, if it can be construed in favour of the defendant it will be so construed according to the rules of our courts. The words are clear,
to enforce against the occupier".
I have looked carefully at the words so skilfully drafted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his Amendment, and I cannot conceive of any circumstances other than those included therein which could come within the words "to


enforce against". If he can give us examples of what the court might say would otherwise be included, I think that I should agree, but I cannot possibly conceive of such a situation.
Moreover, with particular reference to the concluding words of the Amendment
shall be deemed for the purposes of this section not to have enforced his right to recover possession
and so on, one must remember the words "or for reasonable cause" in paragraph (b) of the subsection. It is clear that, if there were a question of recovering possession under a mistake or for innocent cause, that would give a good defence.

Sir J. Hobson: This is one of the points I make. The words "or for reasonable cause" apply under paragraph (b) only with regard to the withholding or withdrawing of services or furniture. They do not apply to paragraph (a).

Mr. Weitzman: Be that so, what I have said about the penal nature of the Clause applies and, clearly, nothing can come within these words "enforce against the occupier" except what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has covered by his Amendment. For that reason and for that reason alone the Amendment is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Richard: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make two points. The first one was that the Amendment, somehow or other, specified circumstances which might not be covered by the original words, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave certain examples. He said, for instance, that there might be circumstances in which a tenant was induced to go, by an agreement obtained by force, fear or fraud. The point I would make about that is that it is very doubtful that any such case could normally be regarded as other than an enforcement within the terms of paragraph (a) as it stands.
If it is any satisfaction to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I accept what he said about the difficulty created when a tenant has gone, but I do not see that it lends any support to his present argument. The problem of the

flitting tenant leaving premises is one which landlords have to face now. In some cases, landlords cannot find the tenant upon whom they wish to serve a notice to quit, and there is then the difficulty that, if notice to quit cannot be served on the tenant, technically one is not entitled to bring proceedings in the county court under the rent Acts. However, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not have forgotten the provisions of Section 54 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which are specifically designed to deal with the problem of the tenant who has flitted. It is a summary form of proceeding under which a landlord is entitled to go to the court ex parte, without need to serve anyone at all, and, provided that he can show the court that he has taken reasonable steps to communicate with the tenant and he has not heard from him, that during six months no rent has been either payable or, if payable, has not been paid, the court will have power to determine the tenancy in fact. Therefore, under the present law, the problem of the flitting tenant is already dealt with.
With respect, the expression, "enforce against the occupier" seems perfectly clear, and the effect of the Amendment would be merely to confuse what, on the face of them, are quite simple words.

Mr. MacColl: The words in the Clause as it stands appear in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, which, like this Bill, was a Measure of short duration. As far as I know, they caused no trouble. We have not heard any evidence that they caused a dispute in the courts or difficulty of interpretation. As this is a Bill designed to deal with an emergency, a Bill which will disappear very shortly, we think it better to stick to the precedent which, in the 1958 Act, has apparently worked quite well. Therefore, we think that it would be wiser to stick to the present words rather than adopt those proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Roots: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with two points which have become very obvious from the speeches by his hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) clearly regarded it as important that, as he thought, the words


"reasonable cause" would furnish a defendant who had been prosecuted—we are dealing with a criminal offence—with a defence. It is clear from the subsection that the hon. and learned Gentleman was in error. The words "reasonable cause" do not appear in paragraph (a), and what he thought was a defence would not be so.
Secondly, when one considers the word "enforce", can it be said with certainty that one enforces a right to possession if someone has left premises with consent? One is not "enforcing"; the tenant has left by consent. Surely the qualification which occurs in the Amendment is of considerable advantage to the tenant. It assists in the very purpose which the Government seek to achieve. It makes it clear that the consent, if obtained by force, fear or fraud, is not to be regarded as a real consent. But with that provision one cannot say that a landlord is enforcing against an occupier if the occupier has ceased to be an occupier by consent.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that the speeches by his hon. Friends have made even clearer the need for the Amendment or something on its lines.

Mr. Hooson: It seems to me that the one matter that the Parliamentary Secretary has not adequately dealt with is the case of the flitting tenant. Under the provisions of the 1954 Act, it has to he proved that six months have elapsed. That is a very long time for a landlord to wait. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary's view that the words "enforce against the occupier" cover the contingencies envisaged in the Amendment, but there is no adequate provision in the Bill with regard to the flitting tenant. I should like an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will look at this again before Report.

Mr. MacColl: I did not want to be discourteous to the Committee by not dealing with all the points. However, I am impressed by the feeling of urgency about the Bill. It is an important Bill for which the whole country is waiting with some anxiety. Therefore, I did not want to treat it as though it were a legal moot. Some of the points raised by hon. and learned Gentlemen have been cancelled out by the remarks of other hon. and learned Gentlemen. I was adopting a sort of "knock for knock" attitude

towards it. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) came to my rescue in that way and agreed with what I had said.
With regard to the flitting tenant, the fact that we have now changed the definition of "occupier" alters the position and makes it less likely, on the whole, that there would be difficulties over the person who was occupying in the sense that he had left chattels in the building but had moved out completely and would no longer be resident. Therefore, my view was that that point would be covered, but we will certainly look at it again before Report.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. I suggested to the Government a little earlier that our proceedings might be helped and accelerated if we had the assistance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. There are now three of them, and I think that one of them might see fit to assist us in our deliberations.
The Parliamentary Secretary based his sole argument in reply to the very powerful legal argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) on the inclusion of similar words in our Act of 1954. However, it appears from the intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that the circumstances in which those words were applied in the 1954 Act were different. The Parliamentary Secretary has not so far attempted to explain why he alleges that words which we must assume were suitable in the different circumstances of the 1954 Act are appropriate here. He did not address himself to the very powerful points made by my right hon. and learned Friend about the creation of a criminal offence and the difficulty, in the circumstances outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend, in which someone sincerely trying to resolve a question of tenancy might be placed.

Mr. MacColl: It was a criminal offence in the 1954 Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of that, but the provision in respect of the passage of six months plainly produced very different circumstances from those contemplated in this Measure. I


do not think the Committee is being treated fairly—I blame not the Parliamentary Secretary but the Government—when a series of legal points of this kind is made and is answered in so unsubstantial a manner.
I would certainly have been disposed to advise my hon. Friends that in these circumstances we should register our disapproval in the Lobby if the Parliamentary Secretary had not given some indication at the last minute that he was prepared to look into this further. I want to know from him, so that we can decide our action, just what he proposes to do. Is it his undertaking that in the course of the Report stage he or the Minister, or, better still, a Law Officer, will clear up the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, or is it simply that he will look into this and if he comes to the conclusion in his wisdom that he does not propose to do anything, then he will leave matters as they are? I should like to know which of those two undertakings he has given so that there can be no misunderstanding in the matter. Such misunderstandings, as he knows, only lead to ill-feeling later.
I put it explicitly. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that at the next stage we shall be given an explanation of the legal position and an indication why the 1954 words are apposite in these different circumstances, I do not think we need take up any more time. If that is my understanding of the undertaking, so be it. If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman's undertaking is courteously—he is always courteous—to look at this in the recesses of his Department, we shall have to press the matter further.

Mr. MacColl: What I said was quite precise and clear, that in order to meet the misgivings of the Opposition we altered the definition of "occupier" to include the fact that he was resident, and this very much, as we understand it—and certainly that is my advice—tends to remove some of the danger from the

flitter. I promised to look into the implications of the changes in the definition in respect of the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I did not in any way indicate that we did not think it was wise to stick to the precedent of the 1954 Act, and that is what we think should be done.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman did not resile from what he said about his desire to follow the 1954 Act. I want to be clear what his undertaking is. Is it that some statement of the Government's view will be made on Report?

Mr. MacColl: No. Subject to whoever will be the occupant of the Chair, I think that it would be a little difficult to rise on Report and deliver a lecture about the law of forcible entry. What I said was that when we came to look at the new definition of "occupier" which has been put in the Bill to try to be conciliatory to the Opposition, if we find that there is a loophole still left dealing with the flitting tenant, which we must close, we will table an Amendment. Otherwise, we shall not table an Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member wished to make a statement on Report, an experienced Parliamentarian such as himself, with the co-operation of the Opposition, could easily have found an occasion by tabling an appropriate Amendment. I do not want to misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I have now understood him to give no undertaking whatever. In those circumstances, my right hon. and hon. Friends will have no option but in the Division Lobby to indicate our disapproval of the Government's failure even to make an attempt to answer my right hon. and learned Friend's speech.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 221.

Division No. 9.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Box, Donald


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.


Astor, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Brewis, John


Balniel, Lord
Bingham, R. M.
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter




Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hendry, Forbes
Peel, John


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Campbell, Gordon
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Channon, H. P. G.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chataway, Christopher
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hordern, Peter
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Martin


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Ht. Hn. Dame P.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roots, William


Cooke Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooper, A. E.
Jennings, J. C.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Dance, James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lagden, Godfrey
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, J. A.


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Eden, Sir John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Gammans, Lady
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gardner, Edward
Mathew, Robert
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Maude, Angus E. U.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Miss Joan


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wall, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walters, Denis


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Wise, A. R.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wylie, N. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey



Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Pym and Mr. More.



Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian





NOES


Albu, Austen
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Floud, Bernard


Alldritt, W. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foley, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Anthony
Freeson, Reginald


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
George, Lady Megan Lloyd


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tam
Gregory, Arnold


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Darling, George
Grey, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Will (Manchester Exchange)


Bessell, Peter
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Edmund
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Blackburn, F.
Dempsey, James
Hale, Leslie


Boardman, H.
Dodds, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boston, T. G.
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Harper, Joseph


Bowles, Frank
Driberg, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Dunn, James A. (L'pool, Kirkdale)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunnett, Jack (Nottingh'm, Central)
Hattersley, Ray


Bradley, Tom
Edelman, Maurice
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
English, Michael
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Ensor, David
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holman, Percy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.
Hooson, H. E.


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan
Horner, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)







Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Maxwell, Robert
Rowland, Christopher


Howie, W.
Mellish, Robert
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blythe)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Monslow, Walter
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skeffington, Arthur


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Murray, Albert
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Jackson, Colin
Newens, Stan
Small, William


Jeger, George (Goole)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Snow, Julian


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.>
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Solomons, Henry


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Norwood, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Steele, Thomas


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Stones, William


Kelley, Richard
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Kenyon. Clifford
Orme, Stanley
Taverne, Dick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oswald, Thomas
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Owen, Will
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Lawson, George
Padley, Walter
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Paget, R. T.
Tinn, James


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Palmer, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tuck, Raphael


Lipton, Marcus
Parkin, B. T.
Urwin, T. W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lubbock, Eric
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, E. G.
Warbey, William


McBride, Neil
Prentice, R. E.
Watkins, Tudor


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


MacDermot, Niall
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Whitlock, William


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Randall, Harry
Wilkins, W. A.


MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Reynolds, Gerald
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Richard, Ivor
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St.Pancras, N.)



Mapp, Charles
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marsh, Richard
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Gourlay and Mr. McCann.


Mason, Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 25, to leave out subsection (5).

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took Amendments Nos. 13 and 33, which read as follows: In page 2, line 28, leave out "premises" and insert "dwelling".
In Clause 2, page 3, line 28, at end insert:
and in particular in the case of an occupier of premises or any part thereof to which section 1(5) applies, the degree of hardship which would be caused to the occupier, his employer and to a person whom the employed employs or intends to employ and for whose occupancy he requires the premises or any part thereof".

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Thank you, Sir Harry. For the avoidance of doubt, does it follow from that that you reserve the right, if necessary, for the Committee to divide on the second of the other Amendments?

The Deputy-Chairman: On Amendment No. 33, yes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged.
This Amendment raises the major question of the inclusion in this Bill of agricultural cottages, whether occupied under a tenancy or by licence. The Minister will recall that we had a certain amount of discussion on this subject on Second Reading, and it could have been no surprise to him or to his advisers when the Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper.
There seem to me to be two major points that are largely in favour of the Amendment. First, it seems to us, at any rate, strange to single out these tied cottages occupied in connection with agriculture and to deal with them in this Bill differently from all other tied cottages, such as railway cottages, Coal Board cottages, or any other premises occupied in connection with a man's employment. It certainly calls for an explanation, which the Parliamentary


Secretary did not give on Second Reading, why there should be this particular picking out of the agricultural cottage. The second main isue is that, whatever the merits of dealing generally with occupation in accordance with a man's employment, there is no reason why the occupation of the agricultural cottage in connection with a man's employment should be dealt with in this Bill.
The present general position, which the subsection seeks to alter relating to cottages occupied in connection with agriculture but not otherwise, is that when one occupies premises in connection with one's job one occupies them either under a tenancy or under licence. If one occupies them under a tenancy, one has the protection of the Rent Acts, up to the maximum figure for control, and on them this Bill would bite. If, on the other hand, one occupies premises under licence, they are not affected by the Rent Acts, nor, apart from this subsection, would the Bill bite on them. That is my understanding of the position. If the Minister cares to correct me later, I shall be happy to listen to him, but he appears to accept that proposition.
6.45 p.m.
Therefore, what this very peculiar Clause seems to do is to say that in connection with agriculture, but in no other connection, premises at present occupied under licence shall be treated as being held on a tenancy and that, as a result, this Bill shall affect them, whereas all other cottages occupied in connection with employments other than agriculture remain wholly unaffected. I know that the question of tied cottages is an old and emotional one, but whatever one's views on the broad general issue may be, considerable explanation is needed as to why agricultural cottages, and agricultural cottages alone, should be singled out for this treatment.
I suggested on Second Reading that it could hardly be possible that the Government thought that a farmer's need of recovery of premises for his workers, when he had a change in his workers, was so obviously smaller than that of any other employer that it is possible to discriminate in this way against him. Anyone with the most elementary knowledge of the facts of agriculture

knows that to be very far from being the case, and knows also the very real problems of obtaining agricultural labour and accommodation for them in isolated farms. Therefore, the first thing the Committee is owed is an explanation for the singling out of agricultural cottages for this particular purpose.
The Parliamentary Secretary attempted on Second Reading to deal with this matter. His reasons were remarkable. They were, first of all, that if this had not been done the Government would have had "scorn poured on us". I do not know why, and I do not know by whom, but, in any event, it is a very odd argument for altering the law of the land.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that as things stand at present farm workers can be evicted at the whim of the employer. If that is true, it is equally true of other premises occupied under licence in other trades, in regard to which the Government propose in this Bill no changes whatever in the law. Is it suggested that farmers are more prone to give way to their whims in this respect? Anyone who knows of the shortage of agricultural labour and the demand for good agricultural workers will know that it is ridiculous to suggest that farmers would let their whims influence them to get people out of their cottages. I t seems to me somewhat insulting to the agricultural community that this is suggested only in respect of farmers and not of other employers.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary said—and here we are getting, perhaps, a little warmer, as we used to say as children—
… nowhere else is the sense of grievance felt as strongly as it is in agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 561.]
That means, I take it, that the National Union of Agricultural Workers got in quicker than the N.U.R. or the N.U.T. The National Union of Agricultural Workers has been good enough to send round a memorandum giving its reasons for supporting this proposal, and it comes over the signature, let me say at once, of its General Secretary, Mr. Collison, who is, I think, one of the ablest and fairest-minded trade union leaders, and one to whom I personally owe a great debt of gratitude for his help and for the courtesy he showed when he was


Chairman of the Social Services Committee of the Trades Union Congress and I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Therefore, what I have to say about this memorandum far from conveys any reflection on the admirable man whose name appears at the bottom of it. I hope that he did not compose it. It says this—[Interruption.] When the Minister has studied it he will realise why no one would wish to acknowledge its authorship. It says:
If the Bill does nothing else, it seeks to restore to farmworkers some measure of protection of which like so many other tenants they were deprived by the effects of the Rent Act, 1957".
This provision does absolutely nothing of the sort, because farmworkers occupying under licence, who are the only people affected by the Clause, did not have the protection of the Rent Act, 1957. We cannot restore to people what they did not have.
The memorandum goes on:
The Labour Party made it perfectly clear in its pre-election policy statement that so far as agriculture was concerned there should be security of tenure for all. They undertook to ensure that no occupant of a tied cottage is evicted until alternative accommodation has been provided.
The Bill does not do that, or anything like it. Whether or not it is a good proposition, it is not a proposition in support of the Bill. The memorandum continues:
We have always maintained that in practice in no other class of tied house does the system operate so harshly against the worker as it does in agriculture and therefore it is surprising to find the assertion being made that the Government is now taking advantage of this emergency relief Measure to deal in a discriminatory fashion with an entirely different issue.
As I say, it is a matter of opinion—and I am not sure that people in other industries would share it—whether this is a more acute problem in agriculture than elsewhere. But it is no answer to the charge to which this passage makes reference that the Government are using what the Minister calls an emergency Measure to put forward a quite separate bit of party policy. It is perhaps a little naïve of this document to parade it in this way.
The memorandum further states—and this I commend to the Committee's attention:

The complaint that this Bill has been introduced without prior warning to or consultation with the N.F.U. calls for little comment since farmers as a whole are well known to have a quite intractable attitude on this issue.
In other words, if we know that people will disagree, do not warn them and do not consult them. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not carry on his dealings with the agricultural industry on that basis. Those are the arguments, and I have given them to the Committee because, with respect, the Parliamentary Secretary did not do so and because they are the arguments adduced by the body which is pressing the Government to go ahead with this proposal.
No one underrates the human problems involved in the question of tied tenancies, but it is a mistake to think that they all cut the same way. In this case, if a farmer requires possession of an agricultural cottage, he almost always requires it for the urgent purpose of putting another agricultural worker in it. Therefore, the effect—and the Committee must face this—of giving help to the worker who is in the premises by delaying his departure by the county court giving, if it so wishes, an extension of time, while no doubt very helpful to the outgoing tenant, can and will most certainly impose real hardship on the incoming worker and his family, who will either be unable, if the farm is isolated, to take up the job at all, or will have to take it up in conditions of discomfort or separation from his family.
On the merits of the matter, I ask the Committee not to rate even the human factors, which we all understand, as necessarily all pointing the same way. Anyone who has studied these matters knows very well that the human factors are very powerful on both sides. They balance in many ways. But there is this point—and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for repeating it, but I want the Minister to have it in mind—whatever the factors, whether they weigh in favour of doing this at any time, what is the argument for doing it only in respect of agricultural cottages, and what is the argument for doing it in this Bill?
On Second Reading the Minister told us the purpose of the Bill. After a passage in which he almost went to the point of attributing its paternity to me, he referred to it as being solely and


exclusively concerned—they are words which those of us who have studied taxation matters know have a certain sombre tinge—
to deal with the immediate short-term problem—to scotch the danger that landlords, realising how their wings will be clipped by our permanent legislation, will take advantage of the weeks and months ahead to evict tenants before our new legislation comes into force.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 439–40.]
That was the Minister's reason for the Bill. It is fairly and squarely related to the pledge which the Government gave, but which, in terms, they know they cannot keep, to repeal the Rent Act, 1957.
But, as I said a moment ago, the Rent Act has nothing to do with this subject. There is therefore no reason to believe that apprehension that the Government will restore the Rent Act will cause landlords to get rid of tenants has any connection with the occupation of agricultural cottages by farm employees, because these were never within the Rent Act and so far, at any rate, the Government have given no indication that they intend not to repeal the Act but to extend its scope into a field which it has never covered before. Therefore, this proposal has nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill. This, as the Minister appreciates, is very important to the progress which he wants to see it make.
I said on Second Reading, and I do not go back on it, that it was not our wish to obstruct the main purpose of the Bill. The Minister welcomed that, but I made it clear that it must be inherent in any such approach that the Bill was not, in the words of the National Union of Agricultural Workers in the passage I have quoted, used as a vehicle to enact other and totally unrelated changes in the law of landlord and tenant which hon. Members opposite may favour as long-term policy but which have nothing whatever to do with the Minister's emergency.
I should be very grateful, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman when he replies would explain how the emergency which he said gave rise to the Bill has any connection with this treatment of farm cottages. It is not suggested, I suppose, that farmers are sacking workers in fear of the Rent Act. Is that suggested? Is it really suggested

that, with the shortage of agricultural labour to which I have referred, farmers, fearing the application of the Rent Act to a matter which it has never touched before, are denuding their farms of labour in order to obtain control of their cottages? If that is the suggestion, let us be told and given the facts on which it is based. It is patently not. It is equally patently the fact that this has nothing whatever to do with the emergency Bill.
7.0 p.m.
I therefore say this to the Minister. If he wants to tackle this question—and I think he is unwise, but unwisdom is not in short supply in this Administration—and if he wants to oblige those who are pressing him to do it, why does he not wait for his main Bill? The Minister told us on Second Reading that that main Bill would arrive fairly early next year. As this is not an emergency situation—it has nothing to do with the indication that the Government will repeal the Rent Act—why does not the Minister wait until then and accept that this is the wrong Bill in which to do this thing even if it were in itself a right thing to do? Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman is not playing fair with the Committee. If the Minister says that he wants a speedy passage for the Bill to prevent evictions by what he calls unscrupulous landlords in the interim before the main Bill is law, he should not ask the Committee and the Opposition to acquiesce in a highly controversial proposal of this sort, which he plainly has not had time to think out and which is, at best, a partial dealing with a deep and complicated subject.
Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman would give an indication of his sincerity in the view that this is an emergency Bill in which he is entitled to ask for the co-operation of the House of Commons if he were to delete from the Bill the two proposals, of which this is one, which seem to many of us to go far beyond the legitimate scope of a short-term emergency Bill. If the Minister accepts this Amendment he will have given an indication of his sincerity and will have done a great deal to evoke the co-operation of all quarters of the Committee. If he does not feel able to do so he will cast doubts on the sincerity of his own observations in introducing the Bill.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the comments of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the inclusion of this provision within the new temporary Bill. I hope that the Government will not agree to the Amendment by the Opposition to withdraw this provision from the Bill. For the first time in the history at least of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, of which I happen to be a member, and for farmworkers generally throughout England and Wales, there is hope that something of a really tangible nature will be done to give the farm workers a measure of protection in the cottages they occupy.
We have heard sentimental expressions about the farmworkers. This has been typical throughout the years. The farm-workers have made their comments on this issue known to every Minister of Housing, every Ministry of Agriculture and, I believe, every Prime Minister for many years. Until now, they have received no encouragement on a matter which is a social blot on the countryside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it is. As one who has been an officer of my union for 27 years and who has spent night after night worrying about where I shall get my members housed when threatened with eviction, I say without doubt that this is a blot on the countryside. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister has included this provision in the Bill.
It is true that many hundreds of men leave their employment during the course of 12 months. I and my colleagues throughout the country have endeavoured, before matters ever reached the courts, to try to find accommodation and we have been eminently successful. There remain, however, the large numbers who still have to face the court and who eventually find themselves issued with an eviction order.
One has to be on the receiving end to appreciate what an eviction order means to a farmworker and his family. I do not have to go back over the years to recall situations, because they are with us every day, every week. Literally every day, applications are made to the courts for eviction orders. Even if only a few workers per annum find themselves ejected on to the roadside, as eleven

cases known to us last year found themselves so placed, this takes no account of the many hundreds who have been worrying during the year about a situation that might well have occurred to them.
There may be, and it is argued that there will be, hardship to the farmer if he cannot secure possession of a cottage for another worker. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames stressed the fact of the incoming worker to the farm who is looking for accommodation. There is not a great measure of hardship today for the farmer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, there is not. I am entitled to my opinion. There is not a great measure of hardship amongst the employers today to secure a worker even if a cottage is not available. I know many cases of farmers who do not have a tied cottage on their farms and yet they manage to carry on their husbandry in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Member is speaking sincerely of the Eastern Counties, but has he any experience of farming in the more remote farming districts on the Welsh border or Shropshire, for example, where, if a farmer loses his cowman, the chances of getting another without a house are absolutely nil? If the farmer is ill at the time, there is also the animal factor to be taken into account.

Mr. Hazell: Indeed, I have knowledge of places other than East Anglia, because my duties for the past 27 years have covered Yorkshire, and more isolated places will not be found than the moorlands of North Yorkshire, the Wold farms of the East Riding or the remote Pennine farms of the West Riding.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the hon. Member agree that the average acreage of farms in the areas which he has mentioned is 35 acres and that they do not employ a man at all?

Mr. Hazell: Averages can be extremely misleading. I talk of my experience in having to look after employees who have been threatened with eviction. It is employees about whom I am concerned, not the owner-occupier, the small farmer who does all


his own husbandry with the aid of his family. I am concerned about the paid workers, because it is they who are affected and they are the people who are to receive some measure of protection by the Clause.
The question of farmers' hardship is played upon very considerably. Do we really give full weight to hardship on the worker? If a farmer finds that he has to wait a little longer for his House, as he may well do when the Bill becomes an Act, he has transport available. He can convey a man to and from his farm to the village. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not speaking without knowledge. This is done in many instances, and it can be done in future.
I stress most emphatically that the the union and the main body of workers in the industry welcome the Bill. This is something for which my union has pressed—and we make no bones about this—ever since we have been an organisation. The first farmworker to enter this Chamber in 1920, the founder of my union, stressed in his early speeches that the problem of the tied cottage was a social blot which had to be removed. My predecessor, Edwin Gooch, also stressed it during his Membership of the House. I was a farm-worker until I was 27, and I am glad to be another farmworker who has come into the House, and I hope to see this social blot removed.
I know farmers who live within ten miles of York who do not let their cottages to their farmworkers. They expect the rural district council to house them. The farmers modernise their cottages and let them to city dwellers at high rents. I am not speaking of matters of which I have no knowledge. I stress most emphatically that if the Amendment were accepted there would be great hardship to farm workers who are looking for relief by the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill.
There are hundreds of empty cottages on the farms of this country. In many cases farmers go to court and secure an eviction order, even though they have empty cottages on their farms. They go to court to get a man out on one pretext or another. Sometimes it is said that the worker is unsatisfactory, sometimes that he is ill, and unable to work, sometimes

that he has met with an injury. I know of many instances in which farmers have applied to the courts for eviction orders even though they have other accommodation empty on their farms.
Throughout the years I have known many instances of farmers securing an eviction order and then not being able to find someone to occupy the cottage. In many instances they had no intention of finding someone to occupy the empty cottage. All that happens is that the farmer reduces his staff by the number who have been forced to leave.
We hear quite a lot about the difficulty of securing labour on isolated farms if the farmer cannot get possession of his tied cottage, but farming Members on the other side know that young people are not particularly anxious to live in isolated areas where they are unable to enjoy the social amenities which are available within the villages and small townships. If the farmers obtained temporary relief by the acceptance of the Amendment, it would be only temporary, because more and more young people are determined not to live in isolation where they cannot secure the amenities to which they have been accustomed in the villages or small towns.
In every constituency—North, South, East and West—there are hundreds of empty tied cottages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Name the Division and I shall give you the numbers in due course.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must be a little careful in his use of the second person singular.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Hazell: Thank you, Sir Harry.
I repeat that there are hundreds of empty tied cottages, which proves that young people are not anxious to live in them. The provisions in the Bill to provide greater security for farm workers will help the industry rather than hinder it. They may encourage workers to go into tied cottages if there is some measure of security. At the moment many farm workers say that they are not going to work for Mr. So-and-so, because they do not want to live in a tied cottage. They will not work for him if it means living in a tied cottage, putting it into good condition, and then finding themselves put out because of an eviction order in a fortnight, or three weeks, or a month, as the case may be.
On behalf of my union and farm workers I welcome this Clause in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will resist to the full the Opposition Amendment.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Amendment No. 33, which is being discussed with the Amendment now before the Committee, was tabled as what we thought was a commonsense Amendment which would greatly help to clarify matters to be considered by the courts. In it we try to put before the court the fact that greater hardship should be taken into account when considering this Clause.
It is true that great hardships occur to farm workers. I am a farmer and I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell). Much of what he said is true, and this Bill may help to restore confidence among many farm workers who are in tied cottages.
We know that there are many cases in which great hardship can be caused to a number of people. Perhaps I might give the Committee a simple example. A farmworker may have left his employment on a remote farm, or perhaps even on one near a town. He may have found himself a better job and given in his notice to the farmer. Subsequently the job may not be available, or his new house may have burnt down, or something similarly disastrous may have occurred. He is thus dependent on the tied cottage. I am talking about stockmen because they are the really important occupants of tied cottages. In the meantime the farmer may have engaged another man to move into the cottage, with the result that he is faced with an appalling situation.
We suggest that the Amendment would meet many of the objections which the N.F.U. has raised. As hon. Members know, in Scotland there has always been protection by the courts against eviction. I do not think that the N.F.U. or farmers generally object to the Bill, but I think that the Amendment would make it quite clear that if the county court judge or the sheriff-substitute was fixing the date, he could take into account all the other factors and all the other hardships. This is a very simple and, may I say again, we think, a commonsense Amendment,

and I hope that the Minister will take this into account in his reply. We think that it leaves the main purpose of the Clause untouched. It will allay a lot of fears in the minds of farmers in Scotland, England and Wales, and it does not alter the protection which the Bill is meant to give.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: It is certainly a pleasure to me to speak after the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) because I happen to live and farm in his constituency, and I think I can claim to know something about the conditions of North Norfolk and, perhaps, other areas as well. I have had many friendly arguments across the Floor of the House on the subject of tied cottages with his predecessor, for whom all of us in this House had the greatest affection. May I say to the hon. Member that the real trouble with the line that he took today is that he painted a picture of conditions in the agricultural industry which is an absolute travesty of the facts.
I have never understood why hon. Members opposite should continue to try to prove that relations between employer and employee in agriculture are thoroughly bad, when in fact they are very good indeed. They are so good, I believe, that the relationship between employer and employee in other industries might benefit by following the relationship between employer and employee in agriculture. Nor do I think that the hon. Member has read the Bill, because the Bill, even if it went through in its present form, would still give the farmer the right to apply to the county court. All the Bill does is to cut out the High Court procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) put the point very clearly when he asked the Minister to explain to the Committee why the service cottage in relation to agriculture should be treated on a completely different basis, by inclusion in this Bill, from any other service cottage in any other industry or business. That is the crux of this debate. We all know, on whichever side of the Committee we sit, of a number of occupations where the employee by the very nature of his employment has to live on or near the


job. Agriculture is certainly one of them.
The stationmaster has to live in the station master's house so long as he is stationmaster at that station. The police constable occupies a house built and owned by the county constabulary so long as he is a police constable in that district. If he goes to another district or leaves the police force for any reason the house has to become almost immediately available for a policeman to replace him in that district. The same, in a slightly different context, can be said of the village schoolmaster in the school house. A house is often attached to a hospital or institution for resident doctors. In all these occupations and professions it is well known that certain types of jobs require men to live on the spot. Agriculture is a particular example because of the need for the employee to look after animals. Therefore, why the tied cottage in agriculture is singled out I do not understand. Nothing that hon. or right hon. Members opposite said on Second Reading has convinced me at all.
The second point on which I want to reinforce my right hon. Friends argument is that as this is a temporary measure, designed to deal with what is alleged to be an emergency, why include the agricultural tied cottage in the Bill? I have never heard of any great emergency or crisis arising in respect of tied cottages in agriculture. I cannot see why this has to be put into a temporary Measure which expires at the end of next year. It is often said—it is really what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North said in a slightly different way—that the good tenant needs protection against the bad landlord. That is true, but so also is the corollary. The good landlord occasionally needs protection against the bad tenant. In this particular case in relation to the Amendment we are dealing with the occupier of a tied cottage where there is no tenancy and no rent paid.
I invite the Committee to consider what the facts of life are in relation to agriculture. We have had examples from the party opposite. Let me give one or two others. Is it really fair that a herdsman looking after a pedigree dairy herd can give notice to his employer, go off to a nearby town, get a

job in that town, at considerably higher wages, when there is no house available for him in the town and continue to occupy the cottage on the farm for a period of four, five, six or seven months, thereby making it quite impossible for the farmer to get a replacement.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that if one puts an advertisement in the local paper for a cowman to look after a dairy herd with, in brackets, "no cottage available", one is likely to get many answers? Does he think that a cowman or anybody else will bicycle, motorcycle or go in a car four times a day, seven days a week, a distance of four, five, six or seven miles to do the morning and the evening milking, let alone in the middle of the night if a cow happens to be calving? That is one of the urgent problems which anyone in agriculture has to cope with. I wonder very much whether the Minister realises that that is a problem that exists. Of course in extremis the farmer has to get possession of the cottage fairly quickly.

Mr. James Dance: I know of a case in my own constituency where a man went into a tied cottage on a farm and a fortnight later went to work with the B.M.C.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The point is that in 99 cases out of 100 there is no difficulty about changing the occupation and changing the cottage that goes with it. We occasionally get the exceptional case, where there is either a little friction or someone has behaved badly, and the farmer goes to the High Court for a writ or to the county court for a possession order. But I must point out also, since the hon. Member for Norfolk, North and others seem to think that it is a great crime that a farmer should apply to the county court for possession in respect of a tied cottage, that very often when such application is made, it is with the full concurrence and sometimes at the request of the outgoing employee, for the simple reason that a great many local authorities, particularly rural district councils, will not entertain an application for a council house although they admit the obligation of rehousing somebody who has no alternative accommodation, unless a


possession order has been obtained. This is often done by agreement between the employer and the employee without any dispute.
The circular which has been referred to, issued to all Members of Parliament by the National Union of Agricultural Workers, does not make a very good case, because the alleged examples of hardship which it quotes amount to very few in relation to the total. The figures and details quoted are absolutely meaningless unless one knows the interval of time which elapsed between the farmworker ceasing to be employed by the farmer and the date on which the farmer applied to the court for possession. In many cases that is a very long time indeed.
7.30 p.m.
In areas where there is considerable competition between agriculture and industry it is not easy to retain a labour force on the farm unless housing is available. This fact must be faced. If it became widely known that a farm-worker could get a temporary job on a farm and get into the cottage which went with the job, and then go to a nearby town and get another job at a much higher wage while still being able to stay on in the cottage for months on end because there was no alternative accommodation in the town—although he gave the farmer notice and it was not a case of the farmer giving him notice—so far from helping the housing problem in rural areas we would aggravate it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether, by the inclusion of this Clause, he is not creating far more problems and difficulties than he is likely to solve.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to clear up one point in connection with my Amendment. It is a legal drafting point. My Amendment seeks to leave out the word "premises" and to insert the word "dwelling". The Amendment has been put down deliberately, because the Bill refers only to dwelling-houses. If the word premises is to be left in I presume that it could refer to a dwelling-house with various outbuildings and sheds around it in which the occupier might well be able to keep a few pigs and poultry, which would bring the premises within the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act or the

Small Holdings Act, which are not within the scope of the Bill.
We must have an answer to this question. I cannot see why the word "premises" should be included when the whole of the rest of the Bill deals simply with dwellings, and I shall be glad if the Minister will deal with that point.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I want to say a word about the Amendment to leave out subsection (5) from the point of view of Scottish farmers and farmworkers, particularly those in the remoter areas. I have in mind the Highlands and the great broad stretch of land lying around the Highland area.
As I understand it, the present legal position in Scotland differs somewhat from that in England. I believe that once his employment right to a house ceases the Scottish farmworker loses his legal right to that house, because the title of occupancy comes to an end. It is possible to go to the sheriff court, but there is some misunderstanding about this. I believe that a sheriff court has no discretion in the matter, because the legal title to be in the house has by that time ended. If I am wrong I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will be able to advise the Committee on the point.

Mr. Hooson: Is it not correct that in Scotland a person cannot obtain possession of a house—even a tied cottage—without a court order, whereas in England and Wales there can be forcible eviction once an employment has come to an end? Is not that the distinction between the two systems?

Mr. MacArthur: I understand that there is no discretion in the court in the case of a Scottish farmworker who refuses to leave his tied cottage on the termination of his employment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): In order to regain possession the farmer must go to the sheriff court to obtain an eviction order.

Mr. MacArthur: That is so. I do not want to make much weight of this, but it is helpful to establish the legal position at the beginning.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: The Scottish position is quite clear. In Scotland it has never been


possible to eject a person from a tied cottage. The Bill bears little relationship to the existing law in Scotland. The position is that in Scotland the farmer must go to the court to have a person evicted. It has been said that that has been the law in Scotland for some years. It all depends on what one means by "some years". It has been the law in Scotland since 1555.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will get to his point as quickly as possible.

Mr. Wylie: All that I am trying to do is point out the misconceptions that exist about the Scottish position. If a person occupies a tied cottage the owner must go to the sheriff court in order to obtain an eviction order, but the sheriff-substitute has no discretion in the matter.

Mr. MacArthur: My hon. Friend has been able to put much more clearly what I was trying to say. The court has no discretion. This demonstrates to the Committee how helpful it is to have a Scottish lawyer in the House—the lack of which right hon. and hon. Members opposite will soon come to appreciate, especially the Minister of State, who made so much play of this fact when we had a Conservative Government.
It is very curious to try to apply to the Scottish position the remedy of this Bill, which surely is designed to provide a form of protection in relation to difficulties that arise in crowded cities. I cannot see the relationship between the problems that arise in crowded cities and the difficulties that might exist in remote areas of Scotland. The question of the tied cottage seems quite irrelevant to the main purpose of the Bill, and I am sorry that it has been introduced without any consultation with the National Farmers' Union or the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
The remote areas are in a very special position. With respect to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), I suggest that the position there is not the same as the generality that he has described. These areas are primarily livestock rearing areas, where the presence of a stockman near to his stock is absolutely essential to the survival of the enterprise. This has long been recognised. A farmer requires his cottage for occupation by the

man doing the work. The work cannot be done without that cottage. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North seemed to suggest that there could be cases in which a farmer could drive a farmworker backwards or forwards to the nearest town or village. This situation cannot apply in respect of a large part of the constituency which I represent, simply because many farms are not near towns or villages. To suggest that a farmer can get out his Land Rover, drive perhaps, some miles to the main road, and then drive his farmworkers to the town—a journey which would take him away from his work on the farm and which with the increasing petrol tax would cost him more than it used to—is a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of stock farming.
Where is he to lodge his farmworkers in the town? There is a scheme for providing special Exchequer assistance for building houses for occupation by agricultural workers. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) put a Question this week asking the number of houses so provided, county by county, in Scotland. If one relates the number of houses to the number of agricultural workers one finds a great disparity. In Angus there is one house for every 60. In Argyll there is one for every 45, in Inverness one for every 50, in Perthshire one for every 22, in Ross and Cromarty one for every 60 and in Wigtown one for every 36. This is not a realistic way of attempting to solve the difficulty.

Mr. Archie Manuel: In trying to draw a picture dealing with Scotland as a whole and citing as an example the portion of Perthshire which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) represents, he should recognise that the county council has been very backward in attending to agricultural interests. In my constituency Ayr County Council has built farmworkers' cottages in the villages and places geographically suited to the farms, sometimes in blocks of four and sometimes in blocks of six. The county council has very nearly solved the problem there without trouble.

Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful to the hon. Member. In Perthshire 182 houses have been provided in this way. These areas are sparsely populated and I


suggest that the houses on the farms should be occupied by people actually working on the farms—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are for furnished lettings."] If the hon. Member comes to the constituency he will see that there is little of this kind of letting going on. The houses are put in good order to provide homes for the agricultural population, which lives in great harmony with the farmers of Scotland. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) made that point.
I do not understand why some hon. Members suggest that there is friction and continual trouble on the land. That is a myth and a fiction which misrepresents the cordial relationship which happily exists on the land. Disputes do not arise to any marked degree in this matter. I fear that the passage of the Bill, with the inclusion of this provision, could lead to disputes which do not now arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has referred to the case of a man who went to live in the farm cottage and then left his job to work for the B.M.C. One could quote similar but less dramatic examples from Scotland of men who might work for the hydro-electric board or the Forestry Commission or other work which had nothing to do with the houses that had been provided.
This kind of process will damage the whole interest of the farming industry in Scotland. To include the subsection as it stands will attempt to solve a problem which does not exist. All it will succeed in doing is to create a problem which will unnecessarily further complicate the farmer's already complicated life and introduce disputes and divisions in an industry which is known for the harmony in which it works.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Dance: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) appears to have met some strange farmers. I do not think that the kind he spoke about would ever be able to get farm workers to come into their employ. There is great difficulty in getting people to work on the land, particularly in areas such as my constituency near Birmingham where, in a sense, there is over-employment. One of the main inducements for someone to work on the land is the provision of a house in connection with his job.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is a housing problem in London.

Mr. Dance: That has nothing to do with the question.
No farmer would get rid of a good farm worker unnecessarily for there is such great difficulty in attracting them. A farmer would have to get rid of a bad, dishonest man, but he would not get rid of a conscientious, good worker. Why do hon. Members opposite pick on the farmer? I think it extremely insulting to the farming industry when they do so. I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). There is great harmony on both sides of the farming industry.
Why not pick on railwaymen? There is the case of the house provided for the man who looks after the level crossing or the signalman. Hon. Members do not criticise those cases because, if they did, work on the railways would soon be brought to a grinding halt. Do hon. Members opposite want work in agriculture to be brought to a grinding halt? That would happen if they pursue their present attitude. Has the Minister of Agriculture given approval to these proposals? If so, has he had consultation with the N.F.U.?
Another aspect of this problem is the question of cruelty to animals. A cow with a full bag can be in appalling agony if she is not milked. A cow having an awkward pregnancy can be in appalling agony. There must be a man on the spot to deal with such cases. What about the situation on hill farms when there is a great deal of snow and sheep are stranded? There has to be a shepherd on the job. That is why it is essential for the farmer to be able to retain possession of the cottage built for the purpose of housing his workers. Are we to go back to the conditions of the days after the war? Then a farmer friend of mine was having a certain amount of labour trouble. An official came to see him and it was pointed out that there was difficulty about weekend milking. The official said, "Buy a refrigerator and don't milk at weekends".
Hon. Members opposite have done enough damage to the country in the last 40 days. Do not let them make the already difficult task for the farmer impossible. I hope they will realise that


the agricultural industry is saving hundreds of millions of pounds which otherwise would be expended on imports. If they realise that they should realise that the farmer must be helped and must be allowed to retain cottages to house his workers. I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be agreed to.

Mr. Temple: I start by paying a very real tribute to the farmworkers of the country. They have done a magnificent job and, so far as I know, extraordinarily little hardship has been caused to them by the system of service cottages which we have used in agriculture for so many years.
8.0 p.m.
Very cogent arguments have been deployed from this side of the Committee in support of the Amendment. I should like to deal with an entirely fresh aspect. I believe that farmworkers have gained very considerably financially through the system of licensed cottages. I understand that half the service cottages are let under the system of licence. Under that system the farmworker pays no rent for the house. I have great personal experience of this matter, having several of my own men in licensed cottages. Some of them have been with me for 15, 20 or even more years in their own houses. What a shock it would be to those men if they had to pay a full rent for the houses.
I believe that the party opposite is concerned with a financial crisis, a balance of payments crisis, at present. British agriculture is making a wonderful contribution to solving the balance of payments problem. I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge for raising costs throughout agriculture. If the Labour Party follows the policy it is pursuing at present with regard to tied cottages, all agricultural workers will be in cottages for which they will be paying a full rental.
I give the Government a very severe warning. If they pursue this policy, they will put up costs throughout the whole of British agriculture to the extent of £2 or £3 per week per farmworker. If this policy is pursued by the Government—I believe that it will be—that will be the result of their actions. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude. This is a case of the Government having acted before they have thought. The Times leader brought that

out very clearly today. I very much hope that when the Government have fully considered what the results will be and have followed this course through to its logical conclusion, they will recognise that the cost to British agriculture will be very great and will have second thoughts about carrying the Bill through in its present form.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): It is not with any intention of trying to end the debate that I intervene at this point. I do so merely because I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I say what I have to say now.
I start by saying in brief what I advise my hon. Friends to do. There is no doubt that the Government will ask the Committee to reject the Amendment in page 2, line 25, to leave out subsection (5). We wish to retain Clause 1 in its present form. I should have liked very much to make a small concession as to "dwellings" and "premises", but on the best legal advice I am assured that. since the whole Bill is framed in terms of "premises" and not "dwellings", it would be unwise to make the minor concessions for which the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) asked. Therefore, reluctantly, we cannot accept the Amendment in page 2, line 28, to leave out "premises" and to insert "dwelling". We would accept the Amendment in page 3, line 28, in principle, but I want to speak on this at some length, because I should like to put forward on Report a different version of it which I shall explain later in my speech.
I have very properly been asked to explain—it is perfectly right and reasonable to ask me to explain—why we have introduced into the Bill one group of licensed occupants who are not tenants. It was perfectly fair of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to say that we must defend this and show that it is logical and consistent, otherwise we are dragging extraneous matter into a short-term emergency Bill.
There are three reasons why we have to make this exception. The first substantial reason, in the nature of the case, has been revealed by the whole debate. We had the remarkable speech of my


hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell). Then we had the answers of the farmers. We saw the extraordinarily sharp balance or conflict of interests and of humanity between the farmer—I noticed this in the speech of farmer after farmer—who feels desperately for the suffering of his animals and the trade union organiser whose main concern is the suffering of his members, of their wives and of their children.
Let us be clear on the subject of evictions. This provision is in the Bill because this is a Bill about evictions. Evictions are almost always—I can generalise in one sense—concerned overwhelmingly with conurbations and the effect of controls. We know about rent control and things of that kind. In the countryside, the kind of eviction which stands out in everybody's mind, though thank heavens it is not now nearly as numerous as it is famous, is the eviction from the tied cottage. It is a simple fact that the problem of the farmworker and his relation to the farmer is a grave human problem. It has got enormously better in the last 10 years.
It is proper that I should declare my personal interest. For 10 years I have been a partner of a farmer. We have a number of tied cottages on our farm. Therefore, I speak from some personal experience of the problem of somebody who actually has to operate a farm under these conditions.
A real and shocking conflict can arise. Anybody who faces this and does not admit it to himself is not doing justice to the problem. Of course it is true that the farmer may be gypped by the bad man who, as somebody said, comes in on false pretences, gets into a tied cottage, and then has to be winkled out of it. There are also the workers who can suffer under a bad farmer. What we are concerned about in a landlord-tenant relationship or in a farmer-agricultural worker relationship is not the good. We are concerned to protect the minority who are potentially sufferers from the bad—the farmer who will suffer from the bad agricultural labourer and the agricultural labourer who will suffer from the bad farmer.
This is a special case. I do not think it is an accident—I did not do this research; it comes in my brief—that

there are quite a number of instances where tied cottages are treated as tenancies in the laws of the country. I quote only two instances which have been given me. In Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1957, instructions are given to the effect that the owners of premises which are tied cottages shall do certain things and have certain responsibilities to the occupants of the cottages. This is only for agricultural tied cottages and for no other licensees.
The same is true again in Section 44 of the Housing Act, 1964. In exactly the same way, that is an Act which finds itself compelled to treat the agricultural tied cottage quite exceptionally, not like other licensees; not like those who are caretakers; nor even Prime Ministers or bishops. We all hear the stories about the Prime Ministers and the bishops who are tied, but those are not quite the ones we are talking about. We are talking about a special group—the agricultural workers.

Mr. Christopher Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate a little what those provisions are and what they set out to do?

Mr. Crossman: I could do so, if the Committee really desires me to. Does the right hon. Gentleman desire me to read them out? I am perfectly prepared to give the reference to the right hon. Gentleman. Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1957, reads:
Notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, where under a contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture the provision of a house or part of a house for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, and the provisions of the last foregoing section are inapplicable by reason only of the house or part of the house not being let to him, there shall be implied as part of the contract of employment the like condition and undertaking as would be implied under those provisions if the house or part of the house were so let, and those provisions shall apply accordingly, with the substitution of 'employer' for 'landlord', and such other modifications as may be necessary.
That is, he shall be treated as the tenant of a landlord and not as the licensee of a farmer. That is a very interesting case which I thought the Committee would be interested to observe. I quote it merely to show that the case of the agricultural worker and his tied cottage has to be treated very often as a tenancy, because it is in fact like that and the


conditions are the same and there are the same problems as we have with rent control in the case of tenants. There should be special controls so as to preserve the position of the agricultural labourer.
Having said that, let me assume for a moment that the Committee still does not agree with me and says, "But you are wrong." I come to my second and main argument.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was the man who, as I said before, told us what the Bill was about. This Bill is about a Labour Government which came to power pledged to do certain things, to repeal the Rent Act. It has been said quite legitimately, "In that case any person who might be in danger of being threatened by the repeal of the Rent Act must be protected by the enforcement of new controls." We have made two pledges—one to repeal the Rent Act and the other to give absolute security to agricultural labourers in tied cottages. Our party's manifesto says:
No occupant of a tied cottage will be evicted until suitable accommodation shall be found.
We as a Government came to power to do two things. We had committed ourselves to restore rent control and security of tenure to tenants who had been denied it by the 1957 Act and we had committed ourselves firmly, for the first time in history, to give full security of tenure to all agricultural workers, whether tenants or licensees, in their tied cottages. That commitment was one whereby the landlord or the farmer would know that if he wanted to get possession, he had been warned, and warned again, by us of our intentions.
We are going to repeal the Rent Act. We are going to give tenants security of tenure. We are going to give security to the agricultural worker in our permanent legislation. Part of our legislation will refer to the agricultural worker and we shall work out a permanent system of security for him as we were pledged to do. We have two groups to look after in this interval between what might be called our threat, or our prediction, and the completion of the operation. These two threatened groups are all those who could be thrown

out of their tenancies and all agricultural workers who potentially could be thrown out of their tied cottages.
If anybody says to me, "There are not many farmers who would do this", I agree; of course, there are not. There are not many landlords either who would try to jump the gun and get an eviction. But we have treated the agricultural labourer along with the tenant because from the point of view of the Labour Government's promises they are in exactly the same position. They are both promised a security that they do not enjoy today and, therefore, they could possibly be the victims of somebody who would seek to exploit the interval and get rid of them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman's case is that ordinary landlords were seeking to get rid of their tenants before the premises became decontrolled. Is he alleging that there is any evidence whatever that farmers are getting rid of their labour in order to secure possession of their cottages?

Mr. Crossman: I made it quite clear in my original speech that there is very little evidence. I told the House how limited the evidence was in either case. But I thought there was widespread agreement that since we are going to spend some weeks, or possibily some months, discussing our system of rent control, we did not want by mischance to be held guilty if there were an unscrupulous farmer or landlord. The right hon. Gentleman knows this.
On this question whether there is anxiety and whether a worker does need protection, I will take the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North, who knows more about the kind of protection that agricultural workers need than does the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about many things, but he does not know what the agricultural worker fears and needs. The evidence here is perfectly clear. The agricultural workers' union has welcomed this Bill—not merely because it presages, as it does, the permanent security of tenure that its members want but because we give them security in the transitional period, just as we do to other tenants before we make permanent legislation.
The Committee ought to be generous in this respect. Those hon Members who feel they know so much about this should give the farm worker the benefit of the doubt in saying, "I should like to be protected". If the right hon. Gentleman says, "You need not worry, nobody is going to do it", I say "Give him the protection then. No harm will be done. Nobody will be injured if nobody is going to take the action against which we seek to guard."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no evidence that farmers are acting in this way. He therefore finds it necessary, or justifiable, to impose this control which he says does no harm. If he has listened to the speeches of my hon. Friends he will be aware that it does a good deal of harm to farmers.

Mr. Crossman: Of course, we can all make speeches, but I did not say there was no evidence. I said that the best evidence was that the trade union representing the farm workers desperately wants this Bill. The members of the trade union are not insane lunatics. They are solid, sensible citizens who represent solid, sensible people. If they want this Bill, it is very good evidence that the Bill is needed in this interval.

Mr. Corfield: Is there not equally good evidence that the farmers, who are equally solid, sensible people, do not want it and that it will do them some harm?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is being impatient. I am coming to the second half of the case. It is true that the N.F.U. was as dismayed by the Bill as we presented it to them, as the farm-workers were pleased with it. The farmworkers were pleased to know that we were giving a blanket security in this way. I have seen the N.F.U. since. We had long consultations with them. I have consulted the N.F.U. and I have studied its objections. Some were reasonable and some were unreasonable. There was one reasonable objection from the N.F.U. to which I should like to refer. The N.F.U. said, "We have no objection to one part of your Bill. We do not object at all to the Bill outlawing the right of eviction without a court order". I was delighted to hear that from the N.F.U. It is in favour of the

Bill in so far as it says that nobody can be evicted without a court order. That is a tribute to the advance of the N.F.U. It is half the Bill, and the N.F.U. agreed to that.
What does the N.F.U. disagree with? It is very alarmed by the length of time during which a court can suspend execution of an order, and this seemed to me to be a reasonable objection. I have been thinking about it a great deal to see what we can do to reassure the N.F.U. which has a genuine case in this respect. I have emphasised how special is the position of the farmworker. The more I hear about lonely farms and lonely cottages, the more I feel for the unfortunate cowman who has a bad farmer, when they are lonely in isolation and hating each other. This is a terrible disaster—[Laughter.] It is no good hon. Members opposite "haw-hawing" like that. We do not say that every farmer is an angel, any more than every farm-worker is. There is the farmer who wants the power to evict without a court order and to be inhumane in an un-civilised way whether or not the N.F.U. agrees with him. The N.F.U. said, "We want our farmers to have to get a court order but we are worried about the powers which are given for the postponement of execution".
I looked at the Clause, which the Liberals looked at as well, and I studied the Bill, and I should like to call attention to Amendment 33 which relates to Clause 2(4). This is the Clause in which the county courts are given guidance. We particularly rely, as I emphasised on Second Reading, on the wisdom of the county courts and their ability to judge a case. We say that they must take a decision, taking into account all the circumstances, and then we list paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Those are matters which they have especially to consider.
We are being scrupulously fair here in preventing the unscrupulous tenant from "gypping" his landlord. The N.F.U. suggested that we should have a fifth subsection dealing not merely with service tenancies but which would mention specifically agriculture and the peculiar problems of the agricultural industry. The N.F.U. said, "Since you single us out in Clause 1 and you have mentioned subsection (5) as a special


example, could not there be special guidance so that county court judges know that when there is a conflict of interests between the farmer and the farm worker they must bear in mind the special conditions of the farming industry, and they should know that there is more to be lost from the farmers' point of view by the suspension of the order?"
Therefore they will be instructed that whereas in other cases they might easily postpone for twelve months they should be careful and should realise that there is a particular aspect of hardship here to consider. They will be required to assess the hardship. I know that it is a terribly difficult thing to do. They should not forget that women and children might be thrown on the streets, but also that a pedigree herd might be ruined. How one measures the balance between the two, I do not know. They will be told, "Make up your minds, but please specially remember that there is in the case of the agricultural industry, and tied cottages are an example, special considerations which you must bear in mind."
I have been busy talking to the N.F.U. and the Agricultural Workers' Union. I do not say that they have reached agreement yet, but we have an idea of the form of words which would make sense for them. The N.F.U. says, "We recognise that farmworkers are not quite the same as ordinary tenants and that there are special considerations to be borne in mind." I propose on Report stage to write something into the Bill and to ask the Liberals whether they think that this is an improvement from their point of view. I shall do this, as I was asked to do by the farmers. I do not say that the N.F.U. approves of the Bill, but the farmers think that it would be a better Bill if certain words were included. Equally the farmworkers do not want any change in the Bill. They prefer it as it is.
I have been asked today to try to be strictly impartial and to treat this Bill as an emergency measure and not to score party points. I have tried to take account of what both unions feel. The N.F.U. is concerned essentially about the health of the farming industry and I am going to try to write in a condition of special guidance to the courts

which I think pretty fairly strikes a balance between the two points of view.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman talked about delay. This is a most important part of the Bill, because in remote parts of the country under the county court circuit system it takes so long to bring a case to court. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that? Why does he object to the High Court procedure which is the quickest way of dealing with the problem?

Mr. Crossman: I am going a little far beyond the Amendment now, but this was a fair point made to us on procedure. I hope when we come to a later Clause in the Bill to be able to say something positive about getting this process speeded up. If we did only this we should do some good with the Bill. The process needs speeding up in country districts. Unless we speed it up there is some of the danger to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
I was looking the other day at some figures which we obtained from the union side. There is no doubt that the High Court is being used by farmers now to evict quickly and speedily. I say as one who has something to do with the farming industry that I do not think we should have a right to evict as speedily as all that. There should be some waiting and postponing. Every decent farmer I know manages in 99 cases out of 100 to have the waiting period necessary to enable the man whom he wants to move to get a job and then move on. This postponing of getting rid of a man is the difference between brutal landlordism and civilised landlordism. Even if it is inconvenient for him as a landlord, it should be a duty imposed upon him by law to wait a little longer.
This is the kind of right which, in future, landlords will have to give to people, if they have not given it before. As I have said, 99 out of 100 already do this. We are legislating only for the tiny minority. We are trying only to level them up to decent standards. I am staggered that we should have this criticism from people who say. "We would not dream of doing this ourselves but we want to reserve the right of barbarism to people whom we do not know and do not wish to know because


they are such cads." We hope to improve relations by eliminating the temptation to the tiny majority to use a right which they should never have had.
8.15 p.m.
We have given a twelve-month period of delay as a maximum, but we are also relying on the county court judges, who in my experience are not overwhelmingly biased in favour of agricultural workers against farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On the whole I would say that they are very careful. They are good, sound sensible people who will judge fairly; who will judge a case on its merits; who will spot a farmworker who has got into a house and then got out of the industry and is sitting on in the house and will give him small mercy. The Bill depends on the discretion of the court. Some people say that it depends too much, but I do not think that the good farmer has anything to fear from the Bill, because discretion will be given to the court to give him a period of one month, three months or six months as the case may be.
I have no hesitation in saying that, for the reasons I have given, we have specifically singled out the agricultural worker along with people in rented property. These are the people for whom we are legislating in the long run and, therefore, they must all have the interim guarantee. That guarantee will not harm the farmers and this interim Measure will be a good step along the road to the permanent security of tenure which we intend to give to farmworkers.

Mr. Evelyn King: I also should declare my interest, as the Minister has done, in that I am a farmer and I have tied cottages. My task in speaking is not made easier by having to follow immediately after the right hon. Gentleman has destroyed almost everything I intended to say. I should like first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on consulting the National Farmers' Union, but he would have saved himself a great deal of trouble and the farming community a great deal of indignation and he would have acted more justly and sensibly if he and his colleagues had done that a long time ago.
I am sure that everyone is surprised that so far we have heard practically

nothing from the Minister of Agriculture. A former Labour Minister of Agriculture, the then Mr. Tom Williams, made a strong point that he would not take the action which the right hon. Gentleman has now taken. The present Minister of Agriculture would do well to keep closer in touch with the agricultural community on this matter and not leave it wholly to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Although the Minister spoke at great length—and I do not complain of that—he did not speak at great length about the Amendment. There is a whole string of questions which inevitably one would wish to ask him in order that he might define more exactly what is intended and what he has accepted. If I read the Amendment correctly, the first thing that must strike everyone is the timidity of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I understand the dilemma. There are those behind the Minister who said that he must consider the plight of the rare person evicted, and the National Farmers' Union, no doubt, told him that he must consider also the plight of the dairy herd. The right hon. Gentleman's solution is to accept neither one position nor the other but to put upon the courts what should be the decision of Parliament. Whatever view one may hold upon these two positions, that was a wrong thing to do.
Throughout the debate so far, we have been discussing the rights and wrongs of tenants. Under this Clause, there is something to be considered other than the rights of tenant and landlord or how justice can be done to either. We must link these questions with the future of agriculture itself, and this is why I say again that I consider that the Minister of Agriculture ought to have been present.
I am frightened by the tendency, slight though it may be, which the Bill may accelerate among dairy farmers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the price of milk is going up, and dairy farmers are tending to drop out of business already. We do not want this to become another Bill for rising prices, and it could easily become so through its effect upon milk production. I have particularly in mind, and to some extent I speak for, the dairy farmers of Dorset. Each of us, no doubt, has in his mind's


eye an idea of the sort of person the dairy farmer is. I am thinking of the man with between 40 and 60 cows who has a herdsman living in a tied cottage. As everyone knows, it is impossible to have a non-resident cowman for a herd of that sort. It is not merely a matter of milking seven days a week. What happens when there is a calving in the middle of the night? The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) suggested that the farmer gets into his Land Rover and goes off to bring the herdsman back. These ideas are so silly that they do not bear listening to. I should he very nervous if dairy farming were in that sense to diminish.
Farmers generally—I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree here—have taken great pride in the housing which they have provided for their workers. Even farmers in a relatively small way of business have spent many tens of thousands of £s upon it. This was, of course, for the benefit of their workpeople, but it was also for the benefit of their farms, and it would not be right if an undesirable incentive were given to them to take less pride in their housing than they previously did, or if there were a growing tendency—it has already started—to use caravans instead.
Finally, there is the most important point of principle. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said on many occasions that housing must be a public service. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I hear approval of that principle again now. What does it mean when applied to agriculture and the tied cottage? It means that, if a man were evicted from a tied cottage, it would be—and for one would be prepared to accept it—a public responsibility to rehouse him. It cannot be a private responsibility, yet that is the effect of the Measure which the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to pass. He is saying to the farmer that he is required to house an employee who no longer works for him—it may be no fault of his; the man himself may wish to leave—and that he personally, chosen at random, must devote, perhaps, a £3,000 house to solve a problem which, in effect, is a public problem.

Mr. Crossman: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I remind him of our party's policy, which,

I hope, we shall carry out. We intend to provide that no occupier of a tied cottage will be evicted until suitable alternative accommodation has been found by the local authority. The hon. Gentleman is putting forward the Labour Government's policy for the solution of the tied cottage problem in the long run. All we are doing here is an emergency job until he has got his way and had that written into legislation.

Mr. King: I am grateful for that, but the fact remains that there will be a considerable interval before it happens.

Mr. Crossman: Four months.

Mr. King: The Minister says four months. I hope that he is right. But there will inevitably be an interval.
I have no doubt that much of the problem could have been avoided and much of the enmity, if it is right to call it that, now existing between the party opposite and farmers could have been averted, if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had had the good sense to be slower. Doing everything in the first 100 days is bringing us all near to disaster. Had the Minister consulted sensibly, as his predecessors of all parties have done, with the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers, with farmers and farmworkers alike, and had he taken a sensible amount of time and been conciliatory, many of his problems would have been averted and this debate might well have been unnecessary.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: We are less reassured after the Minister's speech than before. Although he explained at length that he had at last consulted the National Farmers' Union, I still do not know whether he has sought to consult the other body which is much concerned with agricultural property, the Country Landowners' Association. The actual cottages are part of ownership as well as occupation, and, strictly speaking, it is in his capacity as owner that the owner-occupier farmer is concerned. I regret very much that the C.L.A., which is usually consulted, has not been spoken to yet.
I speak subject to correction, but I do not remember the pledge about agricultural tied cottages in the Labour Party manifesto at the election.

Mr. Crossman: I should like the opportunity to make a correction. I should have said that it came from a speech by the Leader of the Labour Party made in Norwich on Wednesday, 30th September. It was a declaration made on that occasion, not in the manifesto, and I am glad to put that right. The hon. Gentleman read the manifesto but not the speech.

Mr. Hill: I read the manifesto, but I did not hear the speech. As I remember it, the old statement appearing in earlier Labour publications on policy tied the wish to provide security of tenure with the proposal to put an obligation upon the local authority to provide alternative accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) referred to that. We seem to have heard very little about it today. Perhaps it will come in the future Bill, but at this moment we do not know what the Minister's thoughts are about it.
What the Minister said in reply to the debate was that he aimed to give, and was pledged to give, permanent—and he added the word "absolute"—security for agricultural tied cottages. If that is his intention, it seems to strike at the whole system of service occupancy. I believe that it is his intention. All I can say about it is that, if he does strike at that system and he wants to abandon it, he will make it exceedingly difficult to man our agriculture satisfactorily.
8.30 p.m.
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a worker going into what at the moment is a tied cottage will no longer be expected necessarily to work on that farm or in agriculture? We must face this. One finds at busy times of the year that employers who are desperately short of labour go round asking people to work for them for limited periods. Farmworkers living in service cottages would not at the moment think of acceding to that request, or, if one likes so to put it, yielding to that temptation, though high money for a short time may be offered to them. This is what worries me about the Minister's attitude. Is he really saying that the farmworker in future should withdraw from his common belief that if he is living in a service occupancy he should, other things being reasonably equal, work only on that farm?

Mr. Crossman: The answer is that the man should not. I made it perfectly clear that what we are doing is trying to legislate so that there shall be no eviction without a court order. I recognise the need in the last resort for eviction, and I recognise that in the case of a service cottage one might have to have an eviction for special reasons which are not applicable to ordinary tenancies. What I wanted to do was to safeguard, by requiring a court order, the tenant against unfair eviction.

Mr. Hill: I thought the right hon. Gentleman went further than that. He talked about absolute security. The time factor is all important in this case. The right hon. Gentleman has not, except in respect of this one Amendment, suggested any very speedy procedure for getting court orders, though I would agree with him that a court order is highly desirable, and I think that very few farmers would think of proceeding without one, except possibly against a pure trespasser, which is a different position.
It seems that the Minister would be encouraging farmworkers to take a totally different attitude towards their service occupation, because he has lumped together, and so he did in his Second Reading speech, agricultural tenants and service tenants, saying that he could not see very much difference between them. He said that it was ridiculous that the Bill should cover one group of agricultural workers who had formal tenancies but not others who did not. He seemed to misunderstand the difference between those two types of occupation. But it is important. In the case of the service occupation, it is understood that it is co-terminous with employment, and very often what makes it different from an agricultural tenancy is that no rent or rates are paid; the house is given to the worker as a perquisite, and he gets the job and free housing, which is balanced by his knowledge that his residence in that house, subject to reasonable procedure admittedly, is limited by his employment.
It seems to me that if this conception is destroyed some developments may follow which will not necessarily be welcome to farmworkers. What has not so far been said is that not all farmworkers are against the tied cottage, just as by no means all farmworkers happen to be


members of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. I fully appreciate the case made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) in wishing to avoid the evils of the very few harsh evictions that there have been, but that is one side of the picture that has been mentioned. On the other side of the picture are workers who definitely prefer living in tied cottages. I have known people already established in council houses seek a job and say that they would like to leave their council houses and have a cottage with their job. That is not only for the money reason in that they save the rent of a council house and probably get the tied cottage free. Sometimes they like living in the comparative privacy of a farm cottage rather than in a closely knit community. The fact is that they often get these cottages free of rent and rates, and we should remember that the rates of an agricultural cottage may now amount to over £20 a year, and so it is not an inconsiderable benefit.
If this system is destroyed, certain unwelcome results may follow. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) suggested that there will not be very much incentive for these cottages to be given free if their main reasons, which are to attract the best labour and to have flexibility to continue attracting satisfactory labour, are removed. Therefore, it may well be that in future the value of these cottages, which is considerable, will be taken into account, and to that extent the worker will lose.
The second reason, which has not been sufficiently stressed, is that the tied cottage provides a remarkable degree of mobility of labour, often in the worker's interest. Without the ready provision of a cottage to move into, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) said earlier, it would be impossible for many workers to answer an advertisement and secure a better job in their particular skill, as a herdsman with a certain breed, for instance, and to move from one county to another. We ought to recognise that it is the provision of a good home which enables farm workers, not only stockmen, but other skilled specialists, farm tractor mechanics and so on and people of managerial status, to move around the country getting better and better jobs. Without service cottages, they will find

themselves largely confined to their immediate neighbourhoods, and while that may be satisfactory for the more general labour, it would be a severe restriction on the chances of the skilled man working his way up the profession.
Another unwelcome feature may follow from what the right hon. Gentleman said, for the implication of what he has said is that he intends to make farm cottages far less useful to agriculture and farmers than they have been. That will be the effect of his remark when he spoke in terms of absolute security of tenure and engendered the attitude—

Mr. Crossman: I have never spoken in terms of absolute security of tenure. What I said was a "permanent system of tenure", by which I meant not this temporary Bill but the Bill which is to follow. Of course there is no absoluteness of security. We are giving tenants reasonable security and we are giving landlords reasonable security, too. We are striking a balance between the two. That is what we are aiming for, and that must be clear.

Mr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman has come from "absolutely permanent" to "reasonable".

Mr. Corfield: I think that I can help. I took these words down. The words which the right hon. Gentleman used were "absolute security of the tied cottage until alternative accommodation could be found".

Mr. Hill: The dialectics do not alter the purport of my argument, which is simply that the Minister's attitude has made it clear that the good service cottage will be less useful to the skilled and proper manning of agriculture in future than now. It therefore follows that owners and farmers will be correspondingly less likely to spend capital, which is short in agriculture as elsewhere, especially with higher Bank Rate and so on, on improving these cottages. That in turn will militate against the steadily improving standard of living conditions in the countryside.
Broadly speaking, I believe that this proposal will make it rather harder for farmers and farmworkers to provide for an efficient agriculture. I am very anxious that we should have all possible safeguards in the procedure for operating


the eviction process and that there should be full notice to appear before the courts and so on, but I would very much regret a move which reduced the efficiency of agriculture.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I must confess that I have considerable sympathy with the general point of the Clause, but I am surprised at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has behaved. He admitted that his commitment about the tied cottage was intended to be separate from the main commitment about urban houses, and he traced that to a speech of the Prime Minister and not in any sense to the Rent Act, which is the reason why the Bill as a whole was introduced. However, having said that, it seemed extraordinary that a separate election pledge should be redeemed by means of a subsection in a Bill leading to something else.
The right hon. Gentleman claims that interim protection exists only for agricultural tenants, although more or less admitting that there is no evidence of the extent to which farmers are ready to turn people out. It is an impossibly farfetched thought that anything in the Rent Act or its replacement can make protection of this sort necessary.

Mr. George Jeger: Surely every hon. Member from an agricultural constituency knows of cases in which there has been disagreement between the farmer and his farmworker which has resulted in a burst of temper by the farmer who has given notice to quit. We have sometimes had to intervene to patch up the peace between them. I have known certain cases in my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the time-lag which would be necessary for these cases to go to court would not be helpful in allowing for a cooling off of the parties and a possible resumption of good relations?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is making the point of what I was saying, but if he will allow me to make my speech, I will come to that. I think that this pledge has been brought into this Measure without any attempt to consult the N.F.U. before the Bill was written—or, we are now told, the N.U.A.W.—and, so far, there has been no attempt at all to consult the Country

Landowners' Association which, however much the right hon. Gentleman may not like it, is surely interested in the provisions of this legislation.
It is strange that in his consultation the Minister should find, firstly, to his surprise, that the N.F.U. accepted the court order procedure. He discovered, again rather to his surprise, that to pass the legislation as it now is, might cause hardship to some farmers. Surely he should have found out all that before, and should have taken the trouble to have consultations, and discover that there would be hardship, rather than tell us, when the Bill is in Committee, that he thinks that farmers in some cases may be right and the agricultural workers may be wrong. His method seems to be the most extraordinarily slipshod way of bringing forward legislation.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he accepts as a valid point that delay may be bad; that it may take too long to secure the occupation of a house, and might be deleterious to farming. Why could he not have discovered this before? Instead, he first writes in the present provision, and now says, "I have had a bright idea. I have discovered that this is an important point". How much delay does the Minister think is reasonable? From the farmer's point of view, there is little difference between one month, 12 months and 24 months, because if the delay is of more than a few days' or weeks' duration it is quite essential for the farmer to make alternative arrangements. He has either to set up a permanent transport arrangement or find an alternative house—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman argues that if the farmer cannot get the accommodation in a couple of days or so he suffers grave injustice, because the Bill may mean a good deal more delay than that. Will he explain why, though what we are proposing is to some extent similar to what applies in Scotland, we do not seem to have had all these complaints from Scotland?

Mr. Ridley: I would not set up to be an authority on the law of Scotland. All I say is that, if we are to accept a delay, it does not really matter whether it is a very long delay or only a moderate one. What is much more important than the


length of the delay is having to make alternative accommodation for the farm worker until the other accommodation can be used for the purpose for which it was meant.
8.45 p.m.
Therefore, for the Minister, having got the Bill into Committee and discovered all these snags to his own proposals—the need to ameliorate delay, the need to consider hardship to the farmer, the need to consult all these bodies—to say that he will change the whole thing makes me ask why he does not accept the Amendment. I am sure that he can work out a scheme which we on this side will be prepared to consider very sympathetically and then put it in a separate Bill and redeem his election pledge.
I have little doubt that an acceptable solution could be found. This debate has been very constructive. There have been plenty of good suggestions about how a solution might be found. But in the end I am sure that it will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) said, involve public responsibility for housing the displaced worker. What the Minister is doing is putting a disability on the farmer without looking to see how the public responsibility can be fulfilled in providing an alternative house.
For these reasons, it seems to me that this is a bad proposal, and I think that the Minister would be very well advised to take it out of this emergency Bill and to deal with the threat of eviction in the forthcoming Bill on the Rent Act so that we can consider it on its merits.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I feel that the Minister has not considered the impact which the Bill will have on agriculture. Those of us who represent constituencies in the Green Belt round the Metropolis with a considerable agricultural element know what this will mean. In my constituency, which is merely one example, there are any number of farms, usually fairly small and usually mixed farms, with livestock on them, of course, where the presence of a farmworker on the premises is vital to the successful conduct of the farm. Immediately adjacent to, or perhaps I should say in the close neighbourhood of many of the farms, there are factories and industrial employment of a very attractive kind.
What the Minister—when he gives his attention to the matter—is proposing is that the occupants of the farm cottages on these farms can take jobs in the adjacent towns. Would the right hon. Gentleman listen to me until I finish? The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the occupants can take jobs in, let us say in my case, Slough, which has a great hunger for labour and which offers very well paid jobs. Suppose that the cowman, or whoever it might be, takes a job there. The farmer is then in need of a replacement. How is he to get one?
The Minister says, "Of course, all we are making the farmer do is to go to the county court and get an order as distinct from the summary procedure at present in use".

Mr. Manuel: It means more money for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bell: It is kind of the hon. Member to think of my welfare, but I was not doing that at the moment.
For the Minister to say that the farmer can go to the county court and get an order sounds very fair and reasonable. [Interruption.] I do not know whether I can have the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I believe that it is his Bill. He says that it is fair and reasonable for the farmer to go to the county court. But everybody knows that in England it takes a certain amount of time to get there—longer than it takes to get to the sheriff court in Scotland.
I am not saying that there could not be some amendment made in the administration of the county court jurisdiction—I have always thought that there might well be—but it does not exist at the moment. The system is one of going on circuit. It takes a long time to get a case on and it may be adjourned The Minister probably does not know, and if he does not listen he will never learn, how easy it is—[Interruption.] Thank you for thinking of my welfare, but I was not.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. The hon. Member should address the Chair and not another hon. Member.

Mr. Bell: I was, Sir Barnett, referring to the Minister, who is trying to listen,


at least as far as his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary allows him.
The Minister does not know how easy it is for a defendant to obtain an adjournment of a case against him in the county court. It is extremely easy. When a defendant gets an adjournment, it is an adjournment for about a month. Those are important delays and they have to be added to the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill concerning stay of execution. That gives a maximum period of 12 months. The Minister may say that it is a maximum period and that the county court judge is a man of sense and will know that the dwelling is an agricultural cottage and he will know the needs of the farmer. The fact is, however, that these people must take account of the indication given to them by Parliament of the scale on which they should exercise their discretion.
At present, everybody knows that the discretion in non-Rent Act cases is limited to six weeks. The Bill states that it shall be 12 months. That is a straight indication from the legislature to the county court judge that he should enlarge the general scale of stay of execution in non-Rent Act cases from something which is based on a maximum of six weeks to something which is based on a maximum of 12 months. That is my first point.
We, at least on this side, have to regard the Bill as what the Government have told us it is: a paving Bill for their permanent Measure designed, as the Minister has said, to hold the position and to prevent people now in occupation of dwellings from being turned out of those dwellings before the principal Bill takes effect. The Minister has told us this afternoon what his principal Bill will contain about agricultural tied cottages. He will give security of tenure to the tenants until alternative accommodation is available. That is what the Minister said and he reaffirmed it a few momentts ago in answer to an interruption.
What that means when one remembers the delays, to which I have referred, of getting the case on and the stay of execution which can be granted is that a person who, occupying an agricultural cottage in one of the areas which I have

described, decides in a month or two's time to take a job in a factory in a town can stay in his agricultural cottage—until the main Bill comes into force he will be able to do so—and then he will be entitled to stay until the farmer can find him alternative accommodation.

Mr. Crossman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bell: Yes, that is the provision. When the right hon. Gentleman's main provision takes over from the holding operation, which we are attacking, the position will be that anybody who likes to take a job in a tied agricultural cottage in my constituency will, having once moved in, be at liberty to go to a factory in Slough, take a job and remain in his cottage until somebody finds him alternative accommodation.

Mr. Crossman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bell: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. This Bill is to hold the present position until the other Bill comes into force. If the intention of this provision that we are trying to amend is to keep people where they are until that comes into force, I cannot but draw the attention of the Committee to what the position will be when this holding operation is terminated. That seems to be pretty logical, and I have to point out to him that he has this evening told the Committee—he thought it in order to say so; he thought it relevant to say so—that when his main Bill comes in a person who, as I have said, gets an agricultural job as a cowman with a tied cottage, can the next day take an industrial job and wait until somebody else offers him suitable alternative accommodation.

Mr. Crossman: That is not what I meant. I made it clear that we have this balance to achieve. We are talking about people who are in the industry. I said that we were going to give security to people in agriculture until they obtained alternative accommodation. I was not talking about them going to factories and so on. It is a pity that things are said which bear no relation to our intention. It is a pity, because it misleads people outside. Some people will take the hon. Gentleman seriously.

Mr. Bell: I think that the real difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman has possibly been misleading us. I would


not suggest that he is doing it intentionally, but he said, "absolute security of tenure until alternative accommodation is found." I heard him intervene in the speech of my right hon. Friend who referred to this, and by way of explanation of what he said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that he meant absolute security of tenure until alternative accommodation was found.

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman insists on this, let us get it quite clear. We are talking about security of tenure for people who work in agriculture. I did not suggest that if a person was living in a cottage, which is a service tenancy, and he then obtained work in another industry he would be allowed to stay there. I made it clear at the beginning of my speech—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present then—that we had this difficult balance to achieve between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the agricultural worker, who in this case is certainly his tenant, and we had to strike that balance in any landlord and tenant legislation. I then described what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a summary of what we were trying to achieve. I then said that this was what we would try to achieve in our long-term legislation. It is a gross pretence to say that we are going to give security to people who then walk out of the industry. That is sheer nonsense, and it is not something that we ever intended, or dreamt of intending.

Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman says that now, but I am not really interested in all this generalised stuff about the balance of interests. We know that when the law is being formulated one has to preserve a balance of interests between the interested parties, in this case the landlord and tenant, and one has to come down to the positive provisions of a Bill, or a proposed Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that what he is proposing is security of tenure for people in agricultural cottages as long as they remain in agriculiure, I can only say that that is something which he has not said hitherto, and I should have thought it was something which, as a matter of legislative drafting and of administrative application, was quite impossible to operate. However, I do not wish to go into detail about the provisions of a Bill

which we have not seen. I hope that at some stage we shall get clear what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do in his main measure, of which this is a holding operation.
Let us make it clear that in this Bill, to which the Amendment is directed, the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has just been suggesting is not made. There is no question here of distinction between a tenant of an agricultural cottage who have moved out of agriculture and one who has stayed in it but has taken a job on another farm. There is no such distinction made.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was here when I spoke. The second half of my speech was devoted to announcing that we were to move an Amendment on Report to deal with this problem, and to write into Clause 2(4) a new provision specifically dealing with this. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the Committee. He did not bother to hear my speech, and now he is complaining that something was not in it when, in fact, it was the main point of what I said.

Mr. Bell: I heard the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what he had said, which was directed to my hon. Friend who spoke before me, and which was in very clear and unequivocal terms. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, gradually evolves his thoughts as he goes along—I do not suppose that he has changed all that much from being on that side of the Committee—and we shall be well content if his thoughts evolve in the direction that we want them to. But let him make no mistake about it that the proposal which at present stands in this Bill, without the Amendment which we propose, will have the consequences which my hon. Friends and I have indicated for the farmers in our constituency. Let him make no mistake about that. Whether he introduces this distinction or not, it will quite inevitably follow that the small mixed farm with livestock on it will be dealt a most serious and damaging blow.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not treat this as one of those doctrinaire occasions when they just have to support their right hon. Friends on the Front Bench but that they will bring their independent judgments to bear on this proposal and that when we divide


on it, as I hope we shall, we shall have the support of some of the more enlighntened of them in the Division Lobby with us.

9.0 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long, but I should like to raise a point which, so far as I am aware, has not been referred to. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) said that we were dealing in this case with employment in which it was necessary for the employee to live on or near the job. The point I wish to make is the effect that this part of the Bill will have in certain cases where over a stretch of months only—I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but, nevertheless, an important period of time—men will have to travel a considerable distance to and from the farm at very frequent times and very difficult hours, as has already been explained.
It will be within the recollection of at least some hon. Members that in 1947 or 1948 legislation was introduced to alleviate the position with which we are dealing today. That legislation was designed to create farm workers' communities in villages or adjacent to towns. At that time I was a member of a county council and I think it right to say that it held the political views of the Government today and was naturally enthusiastic in interpreting this legislation and built agricultural workers' houses in villages and towns. I was a member of the committee concerned and I was eager, in the widest farming interests at the time, to see the scheme succeed.
I should like to put on record what actually happened due to the fact that through this scheme men had to travel to their work, as I have described. Once these communities, small though they were, were established, two things happened. The first was that men chose almost at any cost—and I accept what an hon. Member said earlier—to go back to even indifferent conditions on the farms. It was extremely difficult to modernise farm accommodation in those days. In the one case, the men chose to go back to be nearer their work. In the other, precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) described took place.
What is important to this debate now is the result. In my immediate area, for which I was a member of the county council, I think I am right in saying that at the end of a very short time only five farm workers remained in 28 houses originally built for farmworkers. In other words, the scheme broke down—and it did so because this in an occupation where the man must live on the job. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is possible to get these houses vacated after a long process, and I then felt passionately that the men who went into industry in the towns should remain in occupation, because it was hopeless to expect them to find houses through their local authorities at that time. My point is, however, that unless a house is available on the spot we shall not be able to maintain in this industry the labour force which it requires.
If we lengthen the period of delay before possession of a house can be obtained, beyond the moderate and definite time for which the good Scottish law has paved the way, we shall arrive at a situation, by the process of the provisions of this Bill, in which the time for which the owner has to wait in order to gain possession will be too long for the efficient continuance of the industry.

Mr. Corfield: I accept that every decent farmer—and I use the word "decent" in this particular context—will always prefer to go to court if he has this sort of problem on his hands. He will rather go to court than take more direct action. I doubt whether any hon. Member believes that anybody likes taking any form of direct action. But occasions do arise in which, after a farmer believes that he has reached a perfectly amicable arrangement and postpones going to court, he is let down and finds he is stuck for labour.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture what they would have done in a case that happened to me. On one occasion I went to my farm after a long day's work and found the cows unmilked, the reason being that the cowman, who was employed jointly with his wife—who looked after the calves—was busy chasing his wife round the kitchen table with a carving knife. The first thing I had to do was to get rid of the wife. I had to get her out of the way. [Laughter.] It is


amusing now, but I can assure hon. Members that it was not very funny then.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to consider how they would deal with the problem if they were faced with this situation. After that I was stuck with doing three men's jobs, and if the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) thinks that that is not hardship, both to the person concerned and the cows, he must have a great deal more spare time on his hands than I have ever had. There are cases where there is a great deal more at stake than mere inconvenience.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked to justify putting this provision in the Bill—a Bill which we understood was to deal with a question of urgency because landlords were evicting tenants in anticipation of a tougher Bill. The answers that the right hon. Gentleman gave were, first, that we must preserve a balance between the tenant and the landlord. He said that we must protect the tenant from the bad landlord and the landlord from the bad tenant.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny, however, that we have a situation in which a tenant, however bad, can stay on for a limited period while the landlord has to put up with his tenant's staying on however bad he may be and however much damage he may be doing to the farm. It is not good enough to say that the balance has to be preserved.
The second leg of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that this provision was suitable for the Bill because, although it had nothing to do with the Rent Act—

Mr. Crossman: It has to do with eviction.

Mr. Corfield: In the Second Reading debate he said that the reason for the Bill was that there must be a holding operation until he brought in Rent Act legislation. That is the only context in which I am referring to the Rent Act. As the Minister of Agriculture was not present, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of not now intervening.
When the Minister of Housing and Local Government went on referring to the main Rent Act, he said that so far as concerned the tied cottage this was a holding operation, and he quoted from

the speech his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Norwich. He said that the object was to introduce absolute security of tenure for agricultural workers—I am not taking him up on the question of whether they stayed in the industry or not—until they could be rehoused. This is a major physical performance quite apart from the legislative performance of providing that there will be houses available, and of providing means to prevent this being a means of jumping the housing queue.
Until we know more about this, to use this one statement in a speech by the Prime Minister as an excuse for bringing this provision into this Bill is simply not good enough.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): We have been committed to this for many years, and we are very proud of it. Why should we not do something about it?

Mr. Corfield: The Minister of Agriculture is not addressing himself to my argument. We are asking the Minister of Housing and Local Government to justify putting this provision into this Bill, which he says is an emergency Bill to pave the way for legislation about the Rent Act.

Mr. Crossman: I did not say that. I said that this is an emergency Bill to deal with a problem on which the Labour Government have been pledged by preventing evictions by a long-term Measure, but that we would have a danger of evictions in the interim between the election of the Government and the long-term Measure. I said that there were two sorts of eviction, those under the Rent Act and those in connection with tied cottages, and these were the two groups we would deal with in the big Measure.

Mr. Corfield: I have the text of the speech with me. It said that this Measure
is solely and exclusively concerned to deal with the immediate short-term problem—to scotch the danger that landlords, realising how their wings will be clipped, by our permanent legislation, will take advantage of the weeks and months ahead to evict before our new legislation comes into force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 439–40.]
This we fully accept in relation to the Rent Act, but the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to produce any evidence at all that this can apply to farmworkers.
No one in his senses believes that any farmer will get rid of a good workman in a tied cottage—they only have good workmen in tied cottages—in order to free the cottages in case further legislation was introduced. On the contrary I have today heard of no fewer than three cases in which farmers are holding back the building of decent cottages for workers because of this legislation.

In view of the utter failure of the right hon. Gentleman to justify putting this provision into this Bill, I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the Government on this Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 168.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[9.15 p.m.


Albu, Austen
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Alldritt, W. H.
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grey, Charles
Mapp, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marsh, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Griffiths, Will (Manchester Exchange)
Maxwell, Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mayhew, Christopher


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mellish, Robert


Bessell, Peter
Hale, Leslie
Mendelson, J. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boardman, H.
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blythe)


Boston, T. G.
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Monslow, Walter


Boyden, James
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hattersley, Ray
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Hayman, F. H.
Murray, Albert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Buchanan,Richard(Gl'sg'w,Spr'burn)
Holman, Percy
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooson, H. E.
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horner, John
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Parkin, B. T.


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence


Darling, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jackson, Colin
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, E. G.


Dell, Edmund
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dodds, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Randall, Harry


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rankin, John


Donnelly, Desmond
Kenyon, Clifford
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Reynolds, Gerald


Dunn, James A. (L'pool, Kirkdale)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack (Nottingh'm, Central)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Rt Hn. K. (St. Pancras,N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Ledger, Ron
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rose, Paul B.


Ensor, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ross, Rt. Hon. William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Short,Rt. Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Fitch, Alan
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Floud, Bernard
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Ford, Ben
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julian


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Solomons, Henry


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Steele, Thomas


Garrow, A.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael




Stones, William
Tinn, James
Whitlock, Charles


Summerskill, Dr. Shirley
Tomney, Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Swain, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Swingler, Stephen
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Taverne, Dick
Varley, Eric G.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wallace, George
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Warbey, William



Thornton, Ernest
Watkins, Tudor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thorpe, Jeremy
Weitzman, David
Mr. McCann and Mr. Howie.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Grant, Anthony
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. (Morecambe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hendry, Forbes
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Robson Brown, Sir William


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Roots, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brewis, John
Hopkins, Alan
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hornby, Richard
Shepherd, William


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvan, Bryan Godman (Rye)
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Campbell, Gordon
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C.
Stainton, Keith


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cole, Norman
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper, A. E.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Lagden, Godfrey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambton, Viscount
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Crawley, Aidan
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh (Hendon, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Mathew, Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus E. U.
Whitelaw, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. (Tiverton)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gammans, Lady
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Younger, Hn. George


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman



Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Mitchell, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Monro, Hector
Mr. MacArthur and Mr. More.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not propose to move Amendment No. 33 for the purposes of a Division in view of the assurances given by the Minister.
I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 31, at the end to insert:
(6) For the purposes of this section a person who occupies a caravan shall be deemed to

have been a tenant and the expressions "premises", "let" and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.

The Temporary Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 31, at end insert:
(6) For the purposes of this section a person who, whilst employed by the British Railways


Board, occupied any premises or part thereof under the terms of his employment shall be deemed to have been a tenant and the expressions "let" and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.

Mr. Lubbock: I am very gratified by the co-operative approach which the Minister displayed towards the Liberal Amendment during the last debate. I hope that we shall have the same attitude towards the Amendment which we are about to discuss now.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure that I wholly apprehended, Sir Barnett, your suggestion that these Amendments should be taken together. The one which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is now moving relates to caravans and I understand that the other Amendment, though in the same names, refers to a different subject—to a person employed by the British Railways Board. I do not know what considerations you had in mind in suggesting that we put them together. They are of somewhat diverse character.

The Temporary Chairman: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) will appreciate, this does not come from me directly. It comes from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but if the Committee would prefer to discuss the Amendments separately I should be pleased to permit it. In the meanwhile, it appears to me that the two Amendments are in some way related and that it possibly would be to the convenience of the Committee if we took them together.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If that is your wish, Sir Barnett, and that of the Committee I would not dissent, but we may have a somewhat ragged debate. My own dialectical powers would not go very far in linking these two, as it seems to me, rather different matters, but others may be more fortunate.

The Temporary Chairman: I should make a correction and explain that Amendment No. 15 has not been selected and consequently if a discussion of that Amendment is desired it would be difficult to have it without taking the two Amendments together. I think, therefore, that it would be convenient for those who want to speak

on Amendment No. 15 to take the Amendments together.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to prevent any discussion desired by any hon. Member. If it is your Ruling that points on Amendment No. 15 can be raised only on Amendment No. 14 I certainly would not raise any objection.

The Temporary Chairman: A decision does not depend on my Ruling but on the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Lubbock: I was going to say that it is extremely awkward to discuss the two Amendments together because they relate to different points and for that reason I was going to concentrate my remarks on the Amendment which I have moved. The other Amendment concerning premises occupied by the staff of British Railways is related, if anything, to the last Amendment that we discussed, but I will not pursue that because I intend to refer mostly to the Amendment which deals with caravans.
I have confidence that the Government will look favourably on the Amendment because I think it represents fairly closely the views expressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition when we were debating caravan sites at the time of passing of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has said that the Bill is designed to give security in the transition period between now and the date when his more permanent legislation will be introduced. As I see it, that must apply to everyone, in whatever type of dwelling they may have to live, and should not be confined to houses alone.
9.30 p.m.
Nowadays the caravan is widely used as a permanent dwelling. Even at the date of the Second Reading of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill, the statistics were most interesting. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), speaking for the Opposition, told the House that there were 150,000 people living in caravans as their permanent dwelling, that they lived on 13,000 sites, 3,000 multiple sites containing about 48,000 caravans and 10,000 individual


sites containing 12,000 caravans. He rightly remarked that that represented a large section of the community. At that date, the proportion was about one in 300 of the population.
Since then, the number of people living in caravans as their permanent dwelling has grown. I am told that it is now about 200,000 people, and that 44,000 caravans are sold by the industry each year, about 30,000 of which remain in this country. Not all of them are used for permanent occupation, but a substantial number are. In my own constituency, I have hundreds of people who live in caravans as their permanent dwelling, hence my interest in the subject.
It may be argued that it would be right to distinguish between caravans used for permanent occupation and those let for holiday use. I should not dissent from that. On the Second Reading of this Bill, we tried to distinguish between furnished houses let for holiday purposes and those occupied permanently, and we have found how difficult that is. Probably the same would apply to caravans, but somehow or other we must grapple with the problem if we are to give to people living in caravans the same security of tenure as the Bill gives to those in houses.
On the Second Reading of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill, the hon. Member for Anglesey commented on the absence from the Bill of protection against exploitation for people who live in caravans. He said:
In considering the security of the site operator, we should not forget the caravan dweller's security of tenure. It seems to me at present that this is the more important of the two. As the law stands, a caravanner can be turned off a site at a week's notice. That is the extent of his security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 700.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to argue the evils which stem from that situation, and I entirely agree with all he said on that occasion.
Unfortunately, no protection for the occupiers of caravans was incorporated in that Act. The Opposition did not put down an Amendment to deal with the point in Committee, for some reason which I have not been able to discover. Perhaps they thought that the point was adequately covered by Section 5 of the Act, which provides that, in awarding a site licence, a local authority may attach such conditions as it may think necessary

or desirable to impose on the occupier of the land. It might have been contended at that stage that a local authority could impose conditions on a site operator with regard to security of tenure for the caravan dwellers or the maximum rent which might be imposed having regard to the facilities provided. But that was not our view, and my noble Friend Lord Meston put down an Amendment in another place designed to deal with this point. He wanted to add to the list of specific conditions which a local authority could attach to the award of a site licence additional words for ensuring that rents charged to tenants are properly related to the facilities provided, and for protecting tenants against orders to quit a site without reasonable notice and without just cause. The insertion of those words would have given a very considerable degree of protection to caravan dwellers.
I said a moment ago that it might have been intended that the words at the beginning of the provision already gave caravan dwellers such protection as I have indicated. But this has been the subject of a decision in the courts in the case of Mixnam's Properties Limited v. the Chertsey Urban District Council, in which it was ruled that a local authority had no power to attach conditions of the kind that I have described.
Therefore, I think that this large number of people is entitled to the consideration of the Committee while it is looking at the protection from eviction provisions which are applied to the other 299 people out of every 300. The increasing use of the caravan as a permanent dwelling makes it imperative that we deal with this omission from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, and if we cannot do it now, we must do it as part of the Government's more permanent legislation which is to follow the Bill.
I appreciate that it may be difficult to deal satisfactorily with the matter in this Bill, because the legal relationship between a site operator and the occupier of a caravan is not the same as that between a landlord and a tenant, and neither is that between a farmer and an occupant of a tied cottage, but we have managed to find words to bring them within the scope of the Bill. It might be said that the relationship is even more remote in the case which sometimes occurs where an occupier merely has a licence to use the land


and the caravan is the subject of separate agreement either with the site operator or some other vendor of caravans who has nothing to do with the operator at all. But, while I appreciate that the Amendment in its present form does not quite get over this difficulty, I am tempted to hope that, in view of the co-operation of the Minister on the last Amendment, he will find words to cope with the difficulty that I have mentioned and bring them to the House on Report.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Is the hon. Gentleman tying it to the caravan itself or to the site?

Mr. Lubbock: I am concerned in this Amendment with the caravan itself, but, as I indicated just now, I should like some words found which would cater for the man who only rents from the site operator the land on which the caravan stands and buys the caravan from someone who is independent of and outside that relationship.

Mr. Costain: If the caravan is moved to another site, does the hon. Gentleman still want to tie the caravan or tie the caravan site?

Mr. Lubbock: As the hon. Gentleman knows, normally a site operator obtains a licence from the local authority under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, to put so many caravans on his land. He is, I believe, entitled to move caravans from one part of the land to another, but he can have only a limited number of caravans on the site. Therefore, I do not see the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw between one plot on a site and another. I should have hoped that it would make no difference which plot the caravan happened to stand on.

Mr. Temple: We have heard on many occasions that the Bill is of a temporary nature to cover a temporary emergency. I believe that, unfortunately, caravans and mobile dwellings have been brought within the scope of the Bill possibly comparatively inadvertently. I regret that I could not support the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in his attempt to bring all caravans within the scope of the Measure.
I should like to ask the Government, however, exactly the extent to which caravans and mobile homes are brought

within the Measure. As I see it, the only residential caravans as such which are brought within the Measure are a very small proportion of caravans which are actually owned by the site operator, leased to a tenant and on a permanent caravan site.
What is very much more important—and this again is brought in by a side wind to the Bill—is the control over the tenancies of holiday caravans, which form a very large proportion of the caravans owned by site operators and which are leased to people for holidays. Much of the caravan holiday business may be upset if the Bill goes through in its present form.
I have been in close touch with the National Caravan Council, which is in touch with the Minister of Housing and Local Government about giving security of tenure to those persons who are resident on permanent caravan sites. The Council is very keen to see that security of tenure is given, but not by this legislation. It is very concerned to keep mobile homes outside the scope of the Housing Acts. That is why I have said that we have to watch the Bill extremely carefully, because it will create precedents for the permanent legislation which is to follow.
I understand that the Council is discussing with the right hon. Gentleman the terms of a licence for the occupation of a caravan pitch. I believe that it will be ready to come forward with a model licence within 10 days, and that will cover the difficulties of control of residential caravans on residential sites. If I am right in saying that as it stands the Bill affects only a small proportion, it would not go to the root of the difficulty of permanent caravan sites. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up the problem and say to what extent the Bill covers permanent caravans on permanent sites which are tenanted and does not cover permanent caravans on permanent sites in owner occupation.

Mr. Lubbock: I am advised that a caravan is not premises and therefore not covered by the Bill without the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman's advice and my advice on this score differ,


and I should therefore like to have the Government's opinion.
There is another side-wind to this matter. I took part in the Committee stage of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill when we discussed houseboats and cabin cruisers. I believe that because cabin cruisers and houseboats are premises, and because they are often let as premises, they come within the scope of the Bill. At a later stage, I shall seek to move an Amendment to take all mobile dwellings—by which I include houseboats which are capable of moving about—outside the scope of the Bill. It may be that we shall need permanent legislation about houseboats and so on, but this is not the right place to introduce any control over these vessels. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to advise us about the scope of the Bill so that we can treat this subject on its merits at a later stage.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hooson: Amendment No. 15—which, I understand, can be adopted with this one—seeks to give the railway employee the same kind of protection as is given by the Bill to the farm employee. I cannot see any distinction between the two types of employee. I have known of cases of hardship caused to the occupier of a tied cottage, and we have heard a very moving description by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) of cases he has known of personal hardship suffered by an evicted farm employee. I have always thought it absolutely barbarous—and I am a member of a farming family and have always lived in a farming community—that possession of a cottage can be obtained without a court order. In that respect, the law of Scotland is far more civilised than that of England and Wales.
On the other hand, I cannot agree that when a railway worker is evicted from his tied cottage he suffers any less than the farm worker. Because branch lines have been closed, railway employees who occupy premises owned by the Railways Board are having to leave those premises. They have no security of tenure. On what grounds do the Government exclude those employees from the protection of this Bill?

Mr. Snow: What is the source of the hon. and learned Gentleman's information

that such railway employees are having their tenancies ended this way?

Mr. Hooson: I know that in my own constituency houses that were occupied by railway employees are now empty. Such employees have no security of tenure at all. The hon. Member is really saying that the Railways Board is entitled to take, as it were, a lenient and considerate view, but so, also, are farmers. From both sides of the Committee we have heard how very considerate farmers never exercise their legal rights. I accept that, but railway employees are entitled to legal protection to a certain extent, and I should like to know what difference in principle the Government see between the railway employee and the farm employee.
On the basis that the Minister said that he accepted in principle the Liberal Amendment No. 33, which would greatly alleviate the position of farmer in regard to tied cottages, we voted for the Government on the Opposition Amendment to leave out subsection (5). I believe that to do so was entirely right, but I cannot see why the same sort of Amendment in respect of railway employees should not be accepted. This provision could be extended considerably—to employees of docks and harbour boards, the National Coal Board and other institutions—but I should like to know how, in principle, the Government distinguish between these two types of employee.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) any examples of the Railways Board taking possession of railway cottages without going through the county court procedure; whether there are any forcible evictions taking place—and where?

Mr. Hooson: In my constituency I know of no single example of a farmer evicting a man. Nevertheless, I accept that he should not have the legal right to do so. Also, I know of no case in my constituency of the Railways Board evicting a man without going to court. But why should there be any distinction between the two?

Mr. Oakes: Because there is only one Railways Board but many farmers.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I want for a moment to develop a little further the interesting and very experienced argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) on the subject of caravans. I do not think that it is wholly appreciated that the caravan situation has now developed into two quite clear elements. We have the summer caravan, which is the one most generally known to the public. I adopt every word, and say no more, of what was said by my hon. Friend; that it is quite clear that that caravan should not come within the terms of the Housing Acts. Indeed, the maximum flexibility is required for the tourist industry, and I would not wish those caravans to come under any control at all. I treat them more as being an entirely movable type of home. They are frequently drawn by a motor car, they are established on temporary sites for the summer only and in certain areas where there is not the same degree of planning control and where they do not need as effective planning controls for amenity purposes as are otherwise required. I propose to ask the Parliamentary Secretaries to give this matter their careful consideration. I believe that they will do that, because this matter is becoming one of some importance in the country.
I turn now to the serious question, the people who make their permanent residential home in a caravan. I instance a site in my constituency at Birchington called Court Mount which is developed entirely like a housing estate. It provides all the facilities and amenities of baths, clubs, restaurants and a club house. The standard of the caravans is first-class and the people who go to live there stay the whole year round, not intending to let their caravans. In some cases they are under the difficulty that they are the owners of the caravans, but in other cases they are the lessees.
These people live in an irremovable home. In the main, they are living on small fixed incomes. They live in structures of an absolutely permanent nature and they prefer a way of life of this kind rather than to live in a bungalow or in a small flat. If they are brought within the Housing Acts, they will, in some way, have to be dealt with on the same basis as ordinary tenants. I am inclined to think that this is not right. I should like to know whether it is intended

that the terms of the Bill should include any class of permanent irremovable-movable dwelling—that is, a dwelling of this nature, a permanent caravan. If that is not the intention, are the Government giving careful consideration to the very important question of whether they should be included in some form of security of tenure provisions, with probably some form of control over reasonable rentals?
I will not go into the question of reasonable rentals in detail, because to do so would be out of the bounds of order in this debate. Suffice it to say this. Those who live in these semi-permanent dwellings, caravans, have neither security of tenure nor any control over sharply rising rentals. Their rentals are rising and their lack of control can be seen more clearly today than before because of the limited number of sites which local planning authorities are willing to make available for caravans.
What is to be done? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing may feel that the proper approach is to deal with the matter through town planning control and to say that planning permission for permanent caravan sites will be given if there is a willingness to make it a condition that there shall be reasonable security of tenure and that the rentals and conditions of tenancy shall not be unreasonable. That is one way in which the matter could be approached.
Another way is to deal with the matter under the terms of the Bill. If we do this, we must consider where we should draw the dividing line between the permanent, all-the-year-round site and the ordinary summer caravanning. Later this evening, or on another occasion, we shall be discussing the vital necessity of flexibility in dealing with very short tenancies, either in the case of caravans or furnished lettings in summer or in exactly the reverse case of the permanent caravan.
While I sympathise to quite a degree with the sentiments of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I cannot share the view that it is the right way to approach the matter. It is thoroughly well worth ventilation, and if the debate does nothing else, it may draw attention to the fact


that there is a real problem for the permanent caravanners. They have a great way of life, and, while many people in many parts of the country tend to regard them as a nuisance and an interference with their amenities, the standards laid down by the Caravan Council and applied in many camps are first-class. Many people prefer to lead this way of life than to live in a bungalow or other accommodation.
We must try, certainly those of us who have no particular ideology in this matter and approach it on purely practical lines, to see that those people get some security of tenure and fair treatment because we limit them by our planning controls so severely in being able to get that class of living today. I hope, therefore, that not only the Minister tonight in his reply, but the Government in future, will give careful thought to the position of the permanent caravanner and pay regard to what is said by the Caravan Council when it shortly issues its proposals and that at the same time, when the Government consider the long-term view and whether they do this by town planning control or by housing—I think that the former is right—they will be extremely careful not to interfere with the freedom of what I call the purely summer resort type of business, which is purely short-term.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I should like to have two or three minutes—that is all—on Amendment No. 15. I understand that whilst we may discuss it, we cannot vote on it.

Mr. Hooson: Is it right, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that we cannot vote on Amendment No. 15?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Yes, Amendment No. 15 has been selected only for discussion.

Mr. Loughlin: I understood that to be the Ruling given by your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Samuel.
I appeal to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reconsider their attitude to the principle involved in the Amendment. I accept in toto

what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that there is no criticism of the Railways Board implied or implicit in the Amendment. There is no evidence to be advanced that the Railways Board has evicted any person at any time.
The point made by the hon. and learned Member concerning the application of this principle to farming was valid: that if it is said that in principle we cannot allow farming to pursue a course of evictions, even though the evidence does exist that evictions have taken place, if we accept that the farmer should not have the right to evict, logically we should say precisely the same concerning the Railways Board or any other employer.
I am a little disturbed about this because the principle applies to a number of categories of employers. I have a vested interest as an official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. We have a number of shop assistants who are evicted or who are faced periodically with the question of occupying premises let in connection with their employment. This applies to the Railways Board, the Forestry Commission, shop assistants and a number of other categories of workpeople.
If we are considering the position even on a temporary basis prior to the introduction of permanent legislation governing tenancies, surely it is equally incumbent upon us to look at the matter in relation to all tenancies of this kind where evictions are at all possible. I appeal to my right hon. Friends to look at the Bill and to apply the stay of execution, if I may so put it, to all premises.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Protection from Eviction Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the point that he was making.

Mr. Loughlin: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have not.
I appeal to my hon. Friends to look at this matter again, and on Report to bring in an Amendment to deal with all tenancies let in connection with people's employment. I suggest that, with the assistance of the parliamentary draftsmen, they could bring in an Amendment to cover these words where premises are let in connection with employment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: By logically extending the principle of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman has done, from farming to policemen, or nurses, or even Prime Ministers, has not the hon. Gentleman demonstrated the invidious character of the Clause in that it picks out agriculture, and only agriculture, and permits all these other categories to which he referred?

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We cannot go back to agriculture.

Mr. Loughlin: I was asked a question. I do not want it to appear on the record that I refused to answer it, but I bow to your Ruling, Sir Samuel, that I am not allowed to do so.

Mr. Costain: When I intervened at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I was seeking information. Perhaps the point which worries me was not made clear in my intervention.
When we are talking about restrictions on caravans, are we talking about the actual vehicle, or the site on which it stands? There are a number of caravan sites in my constituency. Some of them are most satisfactory, and I am worried because I know that from time to time these caravans move from place to place, and from district to district. If there is this restriction on a caravan, and if for personal reasons an owner moves his caravan, not from one plot to another on the same site, but from one area to

another, I cannot see how, in a Bill of this sort, one can tie the owner in a movement of that sort, particularly where such a transfer could become a criminal offence.
In the same way my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) made special reference to motor cruisers and houseboats. The same comment applies there. Surely this is the type of dwelling which at the moment is filling a temporary need in a most satisfactory way. We should be careful before we try to legislate for this type of accommodation on the same basis as permanent accommodation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some guidance on this point.

Mr. Norman Cole: I want to refer to two points, one of which has just been partly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I am in general sympathy with the objects of the Bill but—I hope that I am wrong—I prophesy that the Government are laying up a lot of trouble for themselves because of their ubiquitous use of the word "premises". It occurs so often in Clause 1 as to be impossible to overlook. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), have asked the Government what is the meaning of "premises".
With great respect, I must point out that Governments do not decide the meaning of legal terms. We shall have to wait for the first judge to decide what the word "premises" means. If it is one kind of judge he will decide that it is what we all understand by the word, namely, a place where one can be, whether it floats, flies, stands on the land or is suspended.

Mr. Lubbock: The word "premises" is defined in the Interpretation Act.

Mr. Cole: I do not think that that will affect the position very much, because much more is brought into the ambit of the matter by this Bill than has been the case in the past.
I also have some sympathy with the Amendment, but I suggest that it entirely misses the object that it is designed to


achieve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe put his finger on the nub of the matter. I agree with him that, generally speaking, caravans are rented to an ever-decreasing extent. It is the land which is rented. If the Amendment is to be of any help to the Government it should be designed—as, at the foundation, everything about houses is designed—to deal with land.
There is no question of security of tenure for a man who owns his caravan, simply because he owns it. What matters is where he puts it. It is like the old song—"Where my caravan has rested." Before we worry about caravans we should pay a good deal more attention to the place where they will stand, whether it is hard standing or anywhere else. I am glad that the Government will have to decide this question, and not me.
We should have tackled this question of caravans before. If we tackle it now, let us do so remembering that what matters to a caravan dweller is not the building, which is often his—either on hire purchase or bought outright—but the land. That is what he is concerned with and that is what he has to find in order to put his caravan on it.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry that I did not catch the eye of the Chair earlier when the Minister without Portfolio was sitting on the Government Front Bench. If I had, at least we should have had the benefit of the third Law Officer's advice on what is and what is not a caravan, and whether it comes within the provisions of the Bill or any other related Rent Act legislation. I do not blame him for scuttling out of the Chamber at the beginning of the debate.
Is it not quite clear that the Rent Acts do not apply to caravans? Was not that decided in the case of Morgan and Taylor, in 1948? The well-known article which appeared in Punch in the following year is not to be taken as authority for the fact that caravans come within the provisions of the Rent Acts. They are out of it. They are not controlled. But they come within the terms of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. They can be dealt with under that Act as furnished dwellings.
I do not know whether it helps us with the Bill, but the words in the Bill are

not the same as those in the Rent Acts and in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. They refer to
premises which have been let as a dwelling".
When I endeavoured to find some help from the word "dwelling" and looked at the 1957 Rent Act, I found that that means
the aggregate of the premises comprised in the tenancy
which works round in a circle from dwelling to premises and back again. When one tries to apply this phrase, "premises which have been let as a dwelling" to caravans, one wonders whether it applies also to a stationary houseboat, a cruiser, a railway coach and so on. I think that the railway coach would be covered by Amendment No. 15, but the Government ought to produce some explanation and let us know whether they intend to protect caravans or not. I do not mind much whether this is so or not, but if they leave it so ambiguous I could make quite a fortune out of it. The Government should make this clear and not allow us of the legal profession to make money out of these Bills.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I want to say a few words about a point which is not one of principle, but which seems very important.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I have been trying to look at this matter under Standing Order No. 33, which gives the Chair power to select Amendments or not to select Amendments. I understand that Amendment No. 15 has not been selected. I can discover no power to the Chair to select an Amendment for discussion but not for voting. Of course it sometimes happens that the Chair may say of an Amendment that is not selected and that an hon. Member will be able to make his point on another Amendment because it is included in the other Amendment, but railwaymen's cottages are not included in the Amendment dealing with caravans. My submission is that only what is in order to discuss on Amendment No. 14 can be discussed on that Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is quite correct in saying that Amendment No. 14 has been selected, Amendment No. 15 has been selected for discussion. That


is a practice which goes back to before the war and it is quite in order.

Mr. Paget: Further to my point of order. That only arises where the Amendment which is not selected would have been in order, being within the subject matter of the Amendment which is selected. The Amendment selected for discussion but not for voting is not in order to discuss on the Amendment which is selected for voting in my submission.

The Deputy-Chairman: Discretion lies with the Chair for selection of Amendments. Amendment No. 14 has been selected and Amendment No. 15 has been selected for discussion only.

Mr. Taylor: The interjection of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has made me more keen to put across the point I was making because hon. Members opposite seem to be unwilling to discuss it and this might make their position clear. As we see from the Amendment, the matter of principle is entirely the same. The importance of a tied cottage to a farmer is similar in many ways to the importance of a railway cottage and there are other cases.
The reason why I feel that the sincerity of the Government is in question is that I received a copy of a Statutory Instrument presented by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 13th November. The Bill was presented on 11th November. A paragraph in the Statutory Instrument is interesting. Its matter relates to the question of young offenders' institutions provided in Scotland. Paragraph 132 has a clear statement which says:
(1) If quarters are assigned to an officer he shall occupy them and shall at any time vacate them if required to do so.
(2) On the termination of an officer's service he shall give up the quarters he has occupied as soon as he is required to do so and on the death of an officer his family shall give up the quarters when required to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not think this arises on this Amendment. I ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the matter before the Committee.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: I was trying to point out in the final mention of this that this is relevant to the question whether this is

in fact a consistent policy being adopted by the Government. I might be persuaded to support the Government on the Amendment if I thought that they were putting the policy forward in sincerity. In the last sentence there is a vital question which is terribly important in relation to this matter. Can I just finish this one sentence?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment strictly.

Mr. Taylor: Strictly on the Amendment, I should like to refer to the fact that several things have been mentioned by the Government which lead me to doubt whether they have a clear policy on the question of railwaymen's premises. I feel that the Government must give a clear indication of precisely what their view is on this. If they consistently are in favour of giving protection to the people and giving them legal protection irrespective of what those controlling the properties may do, they must give a clear statement of their views. As we know from your Ruling, Sir Samuel, we shall not divide on this Amendment. Nevertheless, the Government have an opportunity to state clearly whether in principle they agree with the Amendment and are prepared to make an adjustment to the Bill on Report. Hon. Members who want to assess not just the effectiveness of the Bill but also whether the Government are sincere in the point of view they are advancing are entitled to expect the Government to state clearly what their view is on Amendment No. 15.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend the Minister developed, I thought with great force and skill, the argument for putting into the Bill agricultural tied cottages. I do not want to develop his arguments again. They were, to my mind, pretty decisive. That is the argument for putting something in.
As to railways, I would adopt what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said, which was that railways are in the hands of one Board. That Board is subject to public criticism and public control. There is no evidence that the Board has used its powers mischievously. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that railway tenants can survive for another six months, because we are


not talking now about permanent legislation, I repeat. We are talking about temporary legislation.

Mr. Hooson: May I take it from that that the Government intend to deal with this problem in their permanent legislation?

Mr. MacColl: The Government, I think it is reasonable to say, intend to consider it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not being frightfully clever. I am only being honest. I do not know what will be in the permanent legislation, because that is, surprisingly enough, still under consideration. That is why we are having this holding Measure while we consider it. Therefore, I am not trying to evade the issue. I am merely saying that we will certainly look at it. The weight of evidence is that there is no particular reason for regarding the railway situation as an emergency one in which we should act.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite seized of the point. The point at issue is not how the Railways Board is using its powers, whether wisely or unwisely, but what powers it has. Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of cottages owned by the Railway Board is tied in the sense that agricultural cottages are tied and what proportion is occupied by tenants?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The point is this. We are dealing with emergency legislation. There may be some argument about the extent of the mischief in the case of the tied agricultural cottage. There may be differences of opinion about the extent of it, but it is pretty clear from what has been said in the debate by my hon. Friends and what has been said outside that there is a mischief here, however much some hon. Members may feel that it is small and confined to a small area. I do not know of any evidence in the case of the railways. Indeed, the only Members who have spoken on the subject in Committee have gone out of their way to say that they had no evidence. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that this is not really a matter which needs to be considered in the terms of this emergency Bill.
Turning to the subject of caravans, this is a matter with which I have myself been

very much concerned. I have not seen any representations from the Caravan Council, but whether they have come or whether they will come, this certainly is a matter with which I have been concerned and which I have wanted to have included in our examination.
The position is confused. There is some evidence of trouble having been caused. I would say to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that I was surprised—because we treat everything he says with great weight—when he said that caravans come within the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. I did not think that was so and I do not know of any authority for saying that it is so.

Mr. Graham Page: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an authority, reported in 1947, in which a caravan was included under that Act.

Mr. MacColl: I do not know of those circumstances but I will have them looked at.

Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the position is confused. It was for that reason that I asked him to explain the exact scope of the Bill with regard to mobile dwellings. I hope he will do just that this evening.

Mr. MacColl: I was about to explain what I meant when I said that it was confused. I did not mean the Bill was confused. I meant that the situation with regard to caravans was confused. Most of the confusion has already been deployed in the course of our debate. If, for example, we take the case of a caravan which has had its wheels removed and it is drawing services from the ground, it may very well be a house within the ordinary landlord and tenant legislation and it may be covered by the ordinary rent restriction and other Acts.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would this not be an extraordinary situation? It would be possible for the wheels to be put back on to the caravan and for the people concerned to opt out of the Act.

Mr. MacColl: It may be an extraordinary situation. I did not make the law. I am only trying to explain that in some circumstances it is possible that caravans and such things which look


as though they were meant to be removable could become irremovable and would come within the meaning of the landlord and tenant legislation. They may be covered. I am not saying that no case of a caravan would be covered. In many cases the ownership of the caravan rests with the person occupying it. Therefore, what we have got is ground rent for the ground, and in that case the ordinary landlord and tenant relationship would not exist and it would not be very easy to treat it as a landlord and tenant relationship.
There may be other cases in which, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), the caravan is under a hire-purchase agreement with somebody who is not the site owner. That is a further complication because the ordinary hire-purchase and mortgage rules may arise. This needs to be considered very carefully. It may be necessary to do something by planning, as was suggested by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but I would approach that with some caution because I think one might get into difficulties if one appeared to be using planning control for purposes which were not really directed to land use but were directed to the social problems of land control. I do not know. I am speaking off-the-cuff.
I would approach that with some caution but it might be something that could be done. It may be that it could be done through our proposed rent legislation. It may require amendment of the the Caravan Sites and Development Act. It may be that if the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had been more fortunate in another place this difficulty might have been avoided. I give that point for use in the next Liberal manifesto if that is desired.
I am sure that the Government would be grateful for any advice in considering the best way of tackling the matter. We will certainly continue to look at it, but I can give no undertaking that we can do anything in this Bill. It is certainly a matter for consideration in the longer term.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that this Bill is not an appropriate place in which

to deal with the problem, but this short debate has certainly revealed that there is great confusion and uncertainty in the matter. I hope that at the next stage the Government will take such steps as are necessary at least to clarify the present position.
It is not satisfactory that a number of our fellow citizens who live in caravans should be left in such real uncertainty as the debate has shown about their position. Although this Bill may not be the right Measure to deal with them, it is incumbent upon the Government to try to produce some clarity on the matter. On Amendment No. 15 I was disturbed by something which the hon. Gentleman said. In seeking to justify giving no protection to occupiers of railwaymen's cottages he said that, after all, the Railways Board is subject to public control and, therefore, it is not necessary to give the protection which his right hon. Friend thought necessary in other directions.
Even on the narrow point that was a rather misleading argument. The question of the eviction of a railway tenant is plainly a matter of the day-to-day management of the Railways Board and for that reason is outside the control of any Minister of Transport. Anybody who has been at the Ministry of Transport will agree with me on that. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that it was not necessary in the case of a nationalised industry in order to provide for the protection of its workers and tenants to do what it was thought necessary to do where the people concerned were the workers and tenants of private industry. If that is the line the Government are taking, I can only say that it is a most unhappy one.

Mr. MacColl: The limits of my argument were to say that the Railways Board was a public authority. It was accountable and there was no evidence that this power of eviction was being used. Therefore, within the limits of this Bill there was no case for making emergency use of these provisions. I did not commit myself either way on the question whether it was necessary in further legislation. Where there is prima facie evidence that eviction will not happen and where we have a sensible and responsible employer, I think that there is a case for not doing this.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Railways Board is not accountable in this matter, as anybody who has tried to put Questions on the day-to-day administration of the Board knows extremely well. It was said, rightly, that there was no evidence of maltreatment by the Railways Board. There has been no evidence in the Committee of any such maltreatment by any other section of employers whom we have been discussing today. I should be out of order if I pursued that but I think that the Committee will have noted the contrast in the Government's attitude.

Sir Lionel Heald: Whilst I agree that there is considerable difficulty in dealing with the caravan question raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I think that we should be grateful to him for raising it because it has given us the opportunity of hearing from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on this matter in which he is taking an interest, as we know he has taken an interest in the past. As one who has been involved in this problem for some years in my own constituency, I feel that it is a matter which really must be dealt with now.
10.30 p.m.
It is not really in any possible sense a party question, and I would like to say for my part that if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is, as I am sure he is after what he has said, to take an interest in the matter and try to get something done, I shall be very glad to co-operate in any way I can.

Mr. Temple: On many occasions the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I have debated from opposite sides of the Chamber, and I have always had the very highest regard for his knowledge of all the legislation he has spoken upon, but I regret to say that this evening he has not been in his usual informative form. He has not enlightened the Committee as to the scope of his own Bill. I stress this. This is a Government Bill.
I maintain that this Bill will have an effect on mobile homes. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when he replied, brought out all kinds of red herrings—about caravans which have had the wheels removed, for instance. I am concerned with genuine caravans, as I am sure he is, and I hope he will give

the Committee an explanation how he thinks this Bill will affect mobile homes. The National Caravan Council has not had time to study this Bill in detail. I spoke to the general secretary about this matter only last evening on the telephone, and he was speaking from the north of England. He is going to study the Bill in detail next week, and he will study this debate. I do not think he will get any enlightenment whatever from the discussion we have had so far upon the Government's intentions concerning mobile homes.
I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity of telling the Committee in very clear terms the Government's intentions with regard to this Bill. I am not concerned with future legislation. I am concerned with this Bill which is before the Committee this evening. Everybody may have wonderful ideas of what will be done in future. I do not believe that those ideas of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) could be brought within the scope of this Bill. I hope very much, therefore, that we shall have this explanation this evening, so that we shall not find the position so confused—as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said: they were his own words—when we arrive at the Report stage. I hope he will rise again to give this very simple clarification of what the Government's draftsmen mean by this Clause and how it affects mobile homes.

Mr. Lubbock: I would just add a word about what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I assure him that I have studied this matter and have looked at the Interpretation Act, and a "caravan" is not "premises" within the meaning assigned to it by the Interpretation Act. So I think he will find, when he has gone into the matter with the general secretary to the National Caravan Council—

Mr. Temple: I left the Chamber a few moments ago to refer again to the Interpretation Act, 1888, and I have perused it while the debate has been going on, and there is no interpretation of premises whatsoever.

Mr. Lubbock: Perhaps there is another Act. I have taken advice on this, and I am advised that a "caravan" is not "premises." Indeed, I would not have drafted


the Amendment in the form in which it is had I not been so advised. It says:
For the purposes of this section a person who occupies a caravan shall be deemed to have been a tenant and the expressions 'premises' .. shall be construed accordingly.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the advice of the National Caravan Council on this and he will find that what I have said is absolutely true.
I would quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that this Bill is not the best means of dealing with this problem. I realised that perfectly well when putting the Amendment down. I put this to him: if people who occupy permanent dwellings are entitled to the protection which this Bill gives during the interim period while permanent legislation is being prepared, then surely, in a similar way, people who live in caravans are entitled to the same degree of protection till the Bill to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has referred is brought forward.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. I find it difficult to make up my mind on the Amendment. We are in some difficulty over the legal interpretation. Should not the Law Officers be here to explain the position?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lubbock: The people who live in caravans are entitled to the same degree of protection during the interim period as those who live in permanent dwellings. I was disturbed to find the hon. Member's mind so completely open on the question.

He said, "Perhaps we might deal with it as part of the Bill which we shall introduce, or as an amendment to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, or by some other method which I have not yet devised." This is a matter of greater urgency than he seems to appreciate. I am encouraged to some extent by the assurances given by the hon. Member that this matter is in the Government's mind, and if he adds a further assurance, as has been requested, that the new Bill will be brought forward as quickly as possible and that the drafting will be undertaken forthwith so that it is possible for the same degree of protection to be given to these people as is given to those who live in permanent dwellings, I shall feel more satisfied.

Sir D. Glover: I apologise for having raised a point of order about the absence of the Law Officers. I see that the Solicitor-General was in fact present but he was sound asleep and did not know what was going on.

Mr. Allason: I hope that we are not leaving the Amendment without knowing where we stand. I should like to be able to tell my constituents who are living in caravans that they are covered by the Bill. Surely we can have a clear statement from the Government on the issue.

Mr. Temple: Both a Law Officer and the Minister of Housing and Local Government are present. Perhaps the Minister could rescue his Parliamentary Secretary who is in such a confused state and give a clear exposition of what his own Bill means.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not imagine that the Committee will want a prolonged discussion on this Motion as certain aspects of the Clause have had fairly careful examination in the last few hours, but I rise for the purpose of asking one question as well as to put one substantial consideration about the Clause. My question arises from the fact that it is my understanding that the Clause affects local authorities. I should be grateful if the Government would confirm that that is the intention and the effect. If it is their intention, and the effect of the Bill, that this should apply to local authorities—

Mr. MacColl: In what way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The limitations on the power to acquire possession. Local authorities own a good deal of property. If it is the effect, I should be interested to know how subsection (4) of the Clause applies to a local authority. Does one prosecute the mayor, the town clerk, or someone else?
The main effect of the Clause, as was said on Second Reading, is to apply the principle of having to go to the county court if one wishes to resume possession of premises, abandoning the present alternatives of going to the High Court or of evicting without a court order. As I said on Second Reading, that is not itself necessarily a bad principle, and my hon. Friends and I have not criticised the general application of it in the Clause. But I must remind the Committee how very wide it goes. The combined effect of this Clause and of Clause 3 is that the requirement about going to the county court applies to a very high proportion of property in this country.
I am indebted to the admirable service which the Library gives to hon. Members for certain figures which show the surprising result that, if the Clause applied only to property up to an annual value of £200, it would cover 98·3 per cent. of the properties in the country. As the limiting figure for this purpose applied by Clause 3 to Clause 1 is £400, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of properties, including many one would put in the luxury class, are covered. This will, of course, be strikingly true in the countryside

where values are lower. This is not necessarily objectionable, although there is a certain element of the absurd in loading the county courts with work in connection with properties of high value, the occupants of which probably do not require protection of this kind.
I should not for that reason suggest that my hon. Friends should divide against the Motion, though it is my view that it goes unnecessarily high up the scale of values. But we are discussing the Clause against the background of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman threatens us with almost every time he intervenes, which, I understand, is to come before us early in the new year. It must be clear to the Minister, to the Committee and to people outside that our acquiescence in a Clause of this kind, going very high up the scale of values, cannot be interpreted as willingness to accept anything of the sort in connection with the reimposition of rent control when the main Bill comes along. I should be unjust to the Minister if I were to leave him under even the possibility of illusion about that.
I should be grateful, therefore, if the Government would explain why it was thought necessary to go so far up the scale as to cover about 99 per cent. of the properties in the country with the requirement about going to the county court, and I should be grateful also for an explanation of the effect of the Clause, if any, on the position of local authorities in their ownership of property.

Mr. Crossman: First, as regards local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he turns to Clause 3(2), that, although local authorities are not actually mentioned, the subsection refers to the Act under which they normally take possession through the magistrate's court and, therefore, it excludes them from the Act in that sense.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the range of properties is that we decided to make it a simple Bill. We give as the top rateable value the level up to which the county court has jurisdiction. We simply excluded from the Bill properties of rateable value higher than that which the county court serves. We have done that as a simple solution. We do not make any


suggestion that in permanent legislation a similar top level would apply. So I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that if he accepts the Clause this does not mean a permanent implication that this is the right level for security of tenure for a final, permanent solution.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged for that explanation, but I hope before further stages of the Bill—because this will arise on other Clauses—the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries about the effect of Clause 3(2). It appears simply to preserve the effect of the Small Tenements Recovery Act. There is nothing explicit to say that, as property owners, local authorities are excluded wholly from the provisions of the Measure. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman would like to make a full explanation now or that he would prefer to do so at a later stage, perhaps on Clause 3, but it does not on the face of it, and such is the advice that I have received, seem to have the comprehensive effect of exclusion which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that acceptance of this very high figure of annual value has not given rise to any misunderstanding in his mind. It is clear that the figure is based not on any social concept but on the wholly fortuitous—fortuitous in this respect—figure of the highest one that the county courts can deal with.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman is pushing me too far. It is not fortuitous that the figure we chose in respect of county courts happens also to be the figure at roughly about which one can argue that a free market has really started. I do not press it. I simply say that it seemed to us that it was not outrageous—we should not have chosen it had it seemed outrageous; it is related to the county courts—but there is no implication that the Opposition or ourselves would feel committed to this figure for permanent legislation.
On the other point, maybe I used the word "exclusion" not quite correctly. What I should have said was that under Clause 3(2) the local authority's powers are reserved to it for taking action under

the original Act. Of course it is correct that if it chose to take action under the other it would not be excluded, but I do not think it would normally choose to do that.

Mr. Hooson: With regard to whether local authorities come within the ambit of Clause 1, I do not wish to enter into a discussion on the interpretation of Clause 3(2), but, on the other hand, we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary with special London responsibilities that local authorities vary a great deal in quality. This is undoubtedly so whatever the test of that quality is. But can the Minister tell us why in principle local authorities should be excluded from the Clause?

Mr. Crossman: There is no principle here at all. We are merely seeking to preserve the law as it is as far as possible pending major legislation. Whether or not security of tenure should be extended to municipal tenants is something which we think is suitable to be discussed in permanent legislation but not in emergency legislation. We thought it was simpler to keep things as they were in this emergency Measure. It was convenient. I was following the principle that the right hon. Gentleman asked me to follow, of making the minimum changes in the law in order to effect the de facto security of tenure which was our object in this Bill.

Mr. Cole: First, with regard to the upper limit of the properties which are brought into the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was seeking to preserve the existing state of the law. But he is not doing so. Why has he to accept the ceiling of the county court procedure? There is nothing magic or sacred about it, and it was not adopted in the past for the purposes of a temporary Bill of this kind.
Secondly, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates exactly what he is doing to the feelings of people living in houses and flats affected by the Bill by the mentality which he is introducing. He has as good as said that so far as one can ever anticipate a Bill, what is proposed in this Bill will not be the position in the major Bill which we are to get next year. We are thus confronted with the position that when the Bill comes into force in a few weeks' time, it will include a large number of


properties which everyone knows will be excluded from the scope of the major Bill.

Mr. Crossman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cole: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as an ordinary sensible Member of the Committee, that is what I understood him to say and that that is what the average person in the country will understand him to have said. It is the very negation of proper legislation to put something into a Bill now and give notice that a later Bill will alter the position.

Mr. Crossman: It would have been very shocking if I had done it. I merely said that the fact that properties were included now did not mean that they were bound to be included or excluded in future. We are simply leaving open the level at which security of control should operate. That is not decided one way or the other by this Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me tell his right hon. Friend that we would not have taken the convenient level of the county court figure had it not been roughly and readily assessed as a proper level for this emergency legislation. We calculated that with the new rateable values, which might go to £300, we should leave a little extra margin to make quite sure that we had given de facto security not only to those decontrolled in 1957, but to a rather wider class so as to ensure that we had everybody covered. That is all that we have done in this Bill and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain it for the third time.

Mr. Temple: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Sir Samuel? The matter being discussed is mentioned specifically in Clause 3. Can we have your assurance that we shall be able to debate this subject when we reach Clause 3 where it properly belongs?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Yes. Hon. Members will be able to debate it when we get to Clause 3.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I find the Clause remarkably unsatisfactory in many aspects. [Interruption.] Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to intervene?

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Gentleman finds it so unsatisfactory, I invite him to vote against it and let the people see where the Conservative Party stands.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has been making interruptions from a sedentary position almost all evening. I wish that he would listen to the argument, which I have only just started. I was saying that the Clause was unsatisfactory in several respects and, if the hon. Member has the courtesy and patience to listen to me, I will enumerate them.
The first is that the right hon. Gentleman rejected the Amendment to subsection (3) which refers to members of the family residing with him at the time of the tenant's death. The Amendment sought to include a qualifying period of six months' residence, for without that qualification any member of the family, no matter what member—and I am not thinking only of mistresses—could come at the last moment and reside in the house or tied cottage and then claim the protection of the Clause. That is very unsatisfactory.
Another reason is connected with subsection (5). Hon. Members will understand my reservations on this subject of the tied cottage. The right hon. Gentleman has heard of them from many quarters of the Committeee, and has singularly failed to answer the arguments of my hon. and right hon. Friends on why tied cottages should not be included. He has put forward spurious and irrelevant arguments as to why they should be included.
First of all, the right hon. Gentleman says that this is an emergency Bill, and the whole Committee has accepted that—I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would either make his interventions properly or not at all—

Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. Is there not a rule about tedious repetition?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not heard any tedious repetition yet.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not been present throughout the debate, so he will not know that until now I have not contributed to it. If he does not agree with me that is just too bad, but I have a right to my opinion in opposing this particular part of the Clause.
The Minister earlier put forward as a reason for this subsection the fact that this was an emergency Bill. He then said that he had made a pledge. That, I gather, was the understanding in the Labour Party manifesto that tied cottages would be included in any legislation of this kind. He said that there was therefore some urgency to include it in this Measure. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has not put forward a single argument why this provision should be included. There is no urgency, and he could not put forward a single case of hardship.
If I may digress to a certain extent, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the advice of his friends who represent the National Union of Agricultural Workers but, as one of my hon. Friends has said, he does not seem to have taken the advice of, or consulted, the National Farmers' Union—

Mr. Crossman: rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, I have not finished yet. Neither has he consulted the Country Landowners' Association. He seems to have taken the specialised advice of those concerned in the National Union of Agricultural Workers as the raison d'être for bringing in this subsection.

Mr. Crossman: I pointed out at some length that I had taken advice from the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers; and that it was in view of the advice of the National Farmers' Union that an Amendment to Clause 2(4) would be proposed on Report. I am surprised that, so late in the evening, the hon. Gentleman should not have been aware of what was said many hours ago about these consultations.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That really will not do, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He did not consult the National Farmers' Union before the Bill was brought in, or before Second Reading, and I challenge him to say that he did. He knows darned well that he did nothing of the sort. But he did consult the agricultural workers before—

Mr. Crossman: What I said was that in the course of thinking of an Amendment which we shall formulate we had consultations with both the National

Union of Agricultural Workers and with the National Farmers' Union. I made it perfectly clear that before the Second Reading we had consulted neither side.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that members of the Committee will draw their own conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he did not consult the National Farmers' Union before the Second Reading. We also know full well, knowing his own feelings on the subject, that he did take the advice of the National Union of Agricultural Workers before then. It is no use the Minister shaking his head. He quoted the speech of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in east England as the raison d'être for it, and he has had no consultations with his friends who represent the National Union of Agricultural Workers, or with the others. I am not quarrelling in the one case, but it was exceptionally wrong of him not to have had consultations with either the National Farmers' Union or the Country Land-owners' Association. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done neither of those two things. That is a pity. It is no good his trying to shrug it off. One of the things that the Government do not seem to do is to have consultation with those who are deeply involved in the actions they take.
11.0 p.m.
In preparing some of his later Amendments to provide amelioration in various ways, I am glad that the Minister has at last had consultation with the interests concerned. I can only repeat what a pity it is that he did not do this before. He has said at the Box that he will take action to ensure that the county court procedure is speeded up. He knows that, at present, very few, if any, licensees in tied cottages are evicted without court procedure of some kind.

Mr. Crossman: indicated assent.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am glad to have the Minister's agreement. As one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, in this way the Minister will encourage farmworkers to take a different view of the law and of their position when they take occupation of a tied cottage. The Minister said that he will give them absolute security until they can be provided with alternative accommodation. They will


know that if they leave their jobs tomorrow, they will be able to get work in another occupation. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box several times to contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), but he was not convincing.
The Minister said that he would give absolute security to the licensee until alternative accommodation was found for him. He knows as well as I do that it is not easy always to find alternative accommodation. An awkward licensee or agricultural worker could make it very difficult for a farmer to carry out his proper farming practices, to the great detriment of the animals, probably with cruelty to the animals, and certainly to the detriment of the national interest in agriculture. The Minister has completely failed to satisfy myself or, I hope, the Committee on this point.
It seems to me that the Minister is trying to break the tied cottage system. That is the object of what he is doing. I know that he describes the Bill as only a temporary Measure, the forerunner of the main legislation which he will introduce in four, five or six months' time, but this Clause is the forerunner of the breaking of the tied cottage system.
Can the Minister give any reasonable assurance that he will be able to amend or change the county court procedure? This is one of the factors that the farmers and their union are particularly anxious about. How long will be the delay before a farmer is able to go to the county court to have his summons heard for eviction of a tenant if the situation so warrants? The right hon. Gentleman has made vague promises of doing what he can to speed this procedure, but I do not understand how he will be able to do it. Perhaps he can elucidate this to the Committee. We should know before we part with the Clause.
As I have said, I do not want to weary the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am more than willing to go on explaining why I find several parts of the Clause so unsatisfactory and the Ministers's explanation so extremely unsatisfactory and incomplete. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

By using a lot of words, and by making vague promises, he has been trying to make us accept this Clause. This is a completely radical innovation, not only in subsection (5), but elsewhere, too. I do not believe, as my right hon. Friend said during the Second Reading debate, that this Clause, which is the guts of the Bill, has been very carefully thought out. Indeed, the mass of amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has been forced to accept shows that this Clause was badly drafted, and badly thought out. Let him now deny that if he wishes to. I hope that he will take the Clause back and re-examine it, because there are still grave defects in it.

Mr. Allason: Perhaps I might revert to the position of the local authorities. Do the Government intend them to be bound by the terms of this Clause? Or is there to be a different code of conduct for local authorities? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that they would have a different procedure for going to court. A private landlord is bound by a succession where the tenant dies. If a widower tenant dies, and one of the children of the marriage has moved into the house to look after him, that child becomes the tenant, or the occupier, and continues to pay the rent.
Is that to be the case with local authorities? They are interested in this, because there will be accusations of queue jumping. Is it the case that if a tenant dies and his child has moved into the house he has the right of possession? I should like some explanation of this

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
This is the conventional method in this Committee of eliciting, or should I say seeking to elicit—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am not prepared to accept that Motion at the moment.

Clause 2.—(SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF ORDER FOR POSSESSION.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 20, in page 2, line 43, to leave out "may" and to insert
shall subject to subsection (4) of this section".
The following Amendments may be discussed with that one: No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
No. 21, in line 44, leave out "such period, not exceeding".
No. 22, in line 45, leave out
as the court thinks reasonable".
No. 23, in line 45, at end insert:
unless having regard to the circumstances set out in subsection (4) the court considers that such a suspension would be unjust or unreasonable".
No. 28, in page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) If it appears to the court—

(a) that the occupier has failed (whether before or after the termination of the former tenancy) to observe any terms or conditions thereof; or
(b) that the occupier has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy or other contract for the occupation of the premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent; or
(c) that the dwelling is reasonably required by the landlord (not being a landlord who has become landlord by purchasing the dwelling or any interest therein after the commencement of this Act) for occupation as a residence by himself, or by any son or daughter of his over 18 years of age, or by his father or mother, and that greater hardship would be caused by the suspension of the order than by its execution without suspension or further suspension;

the court may, if it thinks it reasonable so to do, having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to any of the foregoing circumstances, either refuse to suspend the execution of the order or suspend the order for twelve months or for such lesser period or on such terms as it thinks reasonable.
No. 29, in page 3, line 14, after "court", insert:
shall exercise the power of suspension by virtue of this Act only if and so far as it is satisfied by the occupier that it is reasonable so to do and the court".
If required, there can be a Division on Amendment No. 29.

Mr. Harold Lever: I beg to move, Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 43, to leave out "may" and to insert:
shall subject to subsection (4) of this section".

I shall try to be brief. The intention of these Amendments is to shift the onus of proof from the tenant to the landlord to withhold the suspension of an order. At present the scheme of the Bill is that when a landlord desires to get possession he goes to the county court judge and the matter is then left at large within the discretion of the county court judge.
The effect of the Amendment is that in the ordinary course the county court judge will suspend the order for 12 months. In other words, it gives him a prima facie basis on which to act, and clear advise as to the intent of the Legislature.
If the subsequent Amendment to subsection (4) is accepted, the effect will be that the judge can withhold the suspension of an order only in certain special conditions. These conditions are the same as those contained in the original subsection, with two important differences. First, the judge will not be obliged to take into account the question whether the tenant has made reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. The reason why I seek to delete paragraph (c) is that it is obviously contrary to the main spirit of the Bill that the judge should be able to take it into account as one of the grounds for refusing to suspend the order.
If the Clause remains as it is worded at present, one of the grounds for a judge making an order for immediate possession would be that the tenant had failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. Since the whole purpose of the Bill, in effect, is to say to the tenant, "Stand pat for the moment. You may not have to be put into the street. You may not be put out by a court order", it is obviously unreasonable, and contrary to the principle of the Bill, to provide that the tenant should pretend to make efforts to find other accommodation, because the whole purpose of the legislation is to preserve the tenant's right to stay where he is until the arrival of permanent legislation which is shortly to come before the House. It would be illogical then to say to a tenant whom we intend to protect by our permanent legislation that he should look for alternative accommodation before he can see what his position will be under the permanent legislation. I urge this as a ground for deleting paragraph (c).
The second important difference in my version of the matters which the county court judge can take into account before making an order for immediate possession is that whereas the original drafting said that he must take into account the question
whether greater hardship would be caused by the suspension of the execution of the order for possession than by its execution without suspension or further suspension",
my version leaves the matter at large. If the landlord claims greater hardship on the ground that he would be financially embarrassed, under the present terms of the Bill it would be open to the court to hold in his favour. This Clause is intended to be an echo of the old "greater hardship" provisions contained in former rent restriction legislation. But that legislation is more tightly drawn, and I have copied it more closely in my Amendment.
If the Amendment is accepted the landlord will be able to urge greater hardship only if it is greater hardship of a kind which this House would approve as a ground for evicting the tenant, namely, hardship for the landlord or his immediate family, who want the house for their own occupation. As the Clause is as present worded, if the landlord could show that hardship to some stranger would result if an order for possession was not made—if the landlord could claim that he intended to give the tenancy to a complete stranger—and picked on a particularly sad case, he could go to the county court judge and claim that even greater hardship would be caused to his proposed new tenant than to the existing tenant if the judge did not make an order.
11.15 p.m.
On the conditions for limiting it in the way I propose, the Committee can he reasonably assured that no spectacular increase in malnutrition among landlords is likely to arise. I submit that these restrictions are important and useful. The judge must make the order unless the landlord shows on the specified grounds that it would be unreasonable to do so. The specified grounds are restricted to those listed in my Amendment, and one will not be attempting to obtain other suitable accommodation. The kind of hardship must be that of the landlord or his immediate family wanting the premises for his or their own use.
Even if the landlord proved these things, it would be for the court to look at the whole circumstances and say whether it was fair and just to give possession. I should have thought that this Committee would wish the tenant to remain in possession until we have our permanent legislation, unless a very strong case is made that he should go in the interim period. If the judge thought it a proper ground he might make the order for immediate possession.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I want to deal briefly with the limited point in the Amendments in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends. The object of those Amendments is to direct the discretion of the county court judge to this particular issue. At present he is not given any direction whatever as to whether or not to make an order for suspension. He is told of certain matters he has to consider, but suppose that those matters are not there. If he has considered those matters, he is not told what he should do.
The two Amendments together say that the judge should make the order of suspension unless, because of the factors contained in subsection (4), he considers that such an order would be unjust or unreasonable. This shows exactly where the onus lies and what the judge should do, although it does not deprive him of discretion. I should think that is what the Bill intends, to stop unreasonable or unjust evictions. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to consider these Amendments favourably either now or later.

Sir J. Hobson: I deal first with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). He was certainly right in saying that it would very much restrict the position as it is under the Bill. It would place not only the shackles he has suggested on the possibilities of getting possession, but would provide that a suspension order is to be made for 12 months in all circumstances unless one or other of the three conditions he mentioned are fulfilled. Either the occupier has to be in breach of the terms of the tenancy, or there must be an unreasonable refusal by the tenant of a new tenancy of those premises—not even alternative accommodation—or the


landlord wants the premises for himself or his family and there will be greater hardship on the landlord unless he gets them. Unless one or other of these factors alone is proved, the tenant is bound to be left in possession for a further 12 months after the date of the hearing in the county court.
This is far too restrictive for a holding Measure. It ignores wholly and entirely the interest of any prospective tenant. It ignores the position that we have discussed so frequently of those who are in service occupancies and service tenancies on farms. In the case of an agricultural worker, whether he was occupying under a service occupancy or a service tenancy, if one of those three matters were proved to exist the tenant would be allowed to stay for a further 12 months, come what may of the cattle and come what may of the real necessities and urgencies to put in another agricultural worker.
The proposal ignores wholly whether the tenant has made any efforts at all to obtain other accommodation in circumstances in which he could easily have obtained other accommodation. Let us not forget that we are including all premises up to a rateable value of £400, and even though it was a category of house of which there was an ample supply, provided the tenant made an effort to get other accommodation in the higher grades of rateable value, still the tenant would be entitled to stay on.

Mr. Harold Lever: This is surely an argument to reduce the ceiling of value and not against the merits of the Amendment.

Sir J. Hobson: We have got to discuss this Amendment on the basis on which the hon. Gentleman has put it to the Committee. He said that he was taking a limit of £400. I suspect that when we get to the discussion of that point on Clause 3 we shall find that a sufficient number of his hon. Friends will be persuaded by his argument that £400 is the right figure, and at this stage I can only proceed safely on that basis. The Amendment limits the power of a county court judge, even in circumstances which he thought were wholly reasonable, even in circumstances in which anybody else would think it was wholly reasonable that a tenant should have only

another couple of months in which to readjust his affairs. It would prevent any order being made except 12 months automatic suspension. I should have thought that this goes too far in a stop-gap Measure, and I and my hon. Friends infinitely prefer the Bill as it stands to the proposals of the hon. Member for Cheetham.
I hope the Committee will agree that his proposal should not be adopted. It proceeds on the basis that the only people who are interested are the individual landlord and the individual tenant, whereas we have got to look at the prospects of prospective tenants; we have got to look at the total availability of accommodation for letting.
If there is to be control, the county court judges are the people who can judge best. It is surely best to leave them to judge whether it is right that premises should become available for additional letting. If we have Measures as restrictive as this, we get back to the position in which everybody will say that the only sensible thing to do is to sell with vacant possession and not for letting. There should be reasonable and sensible provisions whereby the county court judge, if he thinks it is fair to make the premises available for a new tenant, can make a new order.
May I draw attention to Amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 14? A very remarkable feature of this Bill is that the whole control of tenancies and of every dwellinghouse—and that is almost all of them in this country—and their possession after the termination of the tenancy is being placed in the hands of the county court judges.
The other very remarkable thing, which I think is a point which the hon. Member for Cheetham has made, is that, in the Bill as drafted county court judges are given almost no guidance at all as to what they should consider. They are not even bound to consider whether suspension of an order would be reasonable or not.
In Clause 2(1) they have indeed to consider what is a reasonable time, but there is nothing to direct the mind of the admirable—and hereafter no doubt hard worked—county court judge as to what are the issues he should consider, whether he should grant the suspension order after the determination of a


tenancy or not. While I greatly admire county court judges, and I agree that they if anyone are the best people to take on this task, we should at least give them the direction that they should consider whether a suspension order is reasonable or not. That is the minimum. It is very little indeed, and the principal purpose of my Amendment is to see that in Clause 2(3) the county court judge, in considering whether or how to exercise his power under the Clause, shall consider whether it is reasonable or not in all the circumstances to exercise that discretion.

Mr. Harold Lever: That is not in the Amendment.

Sir J. Hobson: It is one of the things Amendment No. 29 says:
shall exercise the power of suspension by virtue of this Act only if and so far as it is satisfied by the occupier that it is reasonable so to do …
I am defining the issue he has first of all to consider as whether it is reasonable. That is the most important part. The second part is upon whom lies the burden to show whether it is reasonable or not? No direction for this is given at all. The county court judge is left entirely in the air. Who is left with the burden? Who is to show whether it is reasonable to have a suspension order or not?
The basis of my Amendment is that those who are asserting that they should be granted a special statutory right, those who are asserting that a privilege should be extended to them, are the persons upon whom the burden should be. I think that where the burden lies before the county court judge does not normally make very much difference. Once the county court judge has heard all the arguments, he will make up his mind in the vast majority of cases as to what is or what is not reasonable. What is essential is that he should have his mind directed to the question he should ask himself, and I say that it is whether he should grant a suspension order or not. Is it not right that, when matters tremble in the balance in those few cases where the burden of proof is important, the burden should be on the person who is asserting that he should have the privilege of a special statutory position?
For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will accept my Amendment and

reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cheetham.

Mr. Weitzman: This Clause in the Bill is devised, I take it, not to protect the bad tenant, but to protect the tenant oppressed by a bad landlord. If that is the object of the Bill, I frankly do not agree with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). I do not agree with him, because I think that the Clause as drawn sets out very clearly the considerations that should be in the mind of the learned county court judge.
For that reason also I disagree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has said. It seems to me—and he will have had experience of county court judges, as I have—that they will be able to apply rough and reedy methods to this. They will go carefully into it. All the relevant considerations are set out in Clause 2(4). The county court judge, hearing the argument and the evidence, will decide upon the matter. It seems to me that both Amendments should be rejected. The form in which the Clause is put is quite satisfactory.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: Does my hon. and learned Friend think that one of the reasons should be that reasonable efforts have not been made to obtain suitable accommodation?

Mr. Weitzman: It is a consideration which the judge might well have in mind. He will give it such weight as he thinks fit.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Roots: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 5, after the first "the" to insert "amount or".
This is purely a drafting point. Assuming, as I do, to take one example, that the Government would agree that if, under Clause 1(3), certain furniture or services were withdrawn there should be a reduction of rent, I am not entirely satisfied that Clause 2(2) makes it quite clear that the county court judge has power to make that amendment in the amount of the rent. If the wording were simply,
… impose such terms and conditions …


it might be clear, but the subsection continues to specify,
including conditions as to the payment …
This might well be the subject of argument, and one wants to avoid subsequent argument about the Clause if possible. It might well be taken as confining what might be imposed simply to a condition of payment, for example, the frequency of the instalments. It is with that in mind that I suggest that it would be clearer if the words of the Amendment were inserted at that point.

Mr. MacColl: I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary. I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's point in wanting to clear the matter up. It would be covered particularly by mesne profits. As the judge will have full powers to fix terms and conditions, including conditions as to payment, mesne profits would cover any variations while the order is in operation. I think that that is the point which the hon. and learned Member is making.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): proceeded to put the Question:—

Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must acquire a hat to raise a point of order.

Mr. Lever: (Seated and covered): My point of order, Mr. Grant-Ferris, is that I am far from clear about what has happened to my Amendment. Certain right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem, in their confusion, to think that the Amendment has been carried, as do some of my own hon. Friends.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. That Amendment has been decided.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 6, after "profits", insert:
damages or compensation for loss or injury caused by the suspension of the execution of the order for possession or by the imposition of terms and conditions.
We are not surprised that we have suffered a little confusion just lately since we have had no reply to the Amendments moved by the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) or to that which I

moved a little earlier. There has been not a single move from the Government Front Bench, but one supposes that that is hardly surprising if one remembers that the Government Whips did not know what to call out after you, Mr. Grant-Ferris, had put the Question. There was no reply, and the hon. Member for Cheetham, with all his experience, does not know whether or not his Amendment has been carried. It is hardly surprising in view of this complete lack of awareness on the part of the Government Front Bench that the hon. Gentleman is in such a confused state of mind.
The Amendment which I am now moving concerns the power which we are conferring upon the county court judges under Clause 2. It is a special power, in view of what is thought to be the needs of tenants, to deprive landlords, and those who are themselves tenants, but who sublet, of the power that they would otherwise have had to exercise in order to gain possession. We are giving county court judges the power to leave the individual in possession of premises which may go up to a rateable value of some £400; that is, some hon. Members may think, in the country almost a castle, if not quite.
Yet the fact of so doing is to produce an effect which may be much greater so as to alter the position of the owner entitled to the possession than can be properly adjusted by the mere provision of the payment of a reasonable rent. While I quite agree that there may not be many cases where this power would need to be exercised, it might be very useful indeed for a county court judge, in deciding the way to exercise the power of suspension reasonably, to be able not only to adjust the rent but to provide that some special loss which he is going to cause to the landlord should be the subject of some compensation or damages. It is a very frequent provision indeed, where a statutory right is given to a person to the injury of another person, that the courts can then assess the compensation which should be made.
This Amendment would give a good deal of flexibility to a county court judge, particularly under the hardship provision in subsection (4,d), in deciding whether greater hardship to one side or the other would be caused, for he could say, "It is perfectly all right to make the suspension order because I can deal


under subsection (4,d) with the hardship to the owner by ordering the tenant, who can well afford to pay, to pay some compensation for the fact that he is to be allowed to remain in possession."
We have to remember that in a great many cases—and in my own division I have often found this—landlords are very much less well off than their tenants. There are many people who have invested their savings, or whose husbands have invested their savings, in property, and who will be, or may be, severely affected in the way they carry on their business and who cannot be compensated by the mere award of payment of the value of the property. All I am saying is that I am sure that it will assist county court judges if, in taking into account the hardship provisions, they can make awards of compensation or damages by statutory powers.

Mr. Mellish: The reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that we believe that the subsection he seeks to amend is satisfactory as it now stands. We believe that the proposal he is now making for the extent of the compensation for the owner in respect of the withholding from him of the possession of his property goes far beyond the scope of the mean profit, that is, the fair rental value of the premises. We believe the court, in assessing the mean profit to be paid by the occupier to the owner for the period of the suspension, will nearly always fix it at the level of rent under the old tenancy agreement.
As we understand it, the Amendment means opening the door to all kinds of claims for damages or injury which it would be very difficult to adjudicate upon, and we think that the implications of this are difficult to foresee. We think that in a Measure of this kind, a temporary one, not to remain on the Statute Book for a very long period, this Amendment is not necessary. We believe that the subsection as it is will meet the point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman defended the owners who are not so well off as their tenants. There may be such owners—and I recognise that there may be—but my right hon. Friend has already said that this legislation, perhaps

for the first time in the history of this country, tilts the legislation in favour of the tenant. For that we on this side do not apologise. [Interruption.] Certainly we do not apologise. The previous Administration, through the Rent Act, tilted against the tenant, and that has been so disastrous as to create the difficulties we are now meeting today.
11.45 p.m.
If anyone wants proof of that, let him go tonight to see the homeless people, with no roof over their heads as a result of previous legislation. I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but we do not believe that this will be a helpful Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman has paid tribute to the county court judges and their great common sense and intelligence in dealing with these matters and their ability to assess in the circumstances questions of damage and hardship—without the addition to the Bill of words which we believe will open the door to many claims to be made.

Sir D. Glover: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Government about the Bill—in fact, more than a good deal; but I support the Amendment. The argument for slip-slod measures throughout history has been that they were good in general character. If ever there were need for a consumer protection society, it is established by the way in which the Bill has been produced.
This is a very complicated Bill which deals very largely with legal points, and. with the greatest respect for my friend, the new Parliamentary Secretary, this sort of stuff is right above his head and mine. We are dealing with legal questions, and in courtesy to the House there ought to be a Law Officer present. I find it far easier to understand various parts of the Bill after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who was a Law Officer, has explained them than after any explanation from the Government Front Bench.
I do not want to be obstructive, but we are not being given the explanations of various parts of the Bill which we are entitled to expect. It is always the argument of a slip-shod Government that it is only emergency legislation. In 1917


legislation was passed which became known as the Defence of the Realm Act. It was passed through the House easily because it was emergency legislation. But it stayed on the Statute Book to a greater or lesser degree for the best part of 30 years. Once we pass an Act of Parliament, none of us knows what will happen in the future.
With all the events of recent days, right hon. Gentlemen opposite may no longer be the Government when the date for the expiry of the Act is reached. It is no part of Parliament's duty to allow slip-shod legislation to reach the Statute Book on the excuse that it is to operate for only 12 months. So much of the Bill has been ill thought out. The Minister himself does not know half its implications. It needs a Law Officer to explain the legal implications.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) when he says that a Law Officer is needed to explain the details and intricacies of the Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary's explanations are lacking in clarity and understanding. He has resorted, as in the past, to sentimentalities to try to move the Committee by talking about hardship in the most sentimental terms, but he fails to appreciate that there is another aspect. I represent a constituency in which there is a lot of holiday accommodation—for example, in North Cornwall. Here a great deal of accommodation is let for the holiday season.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary understands that if this accommodation is let in the winter at a smaller rent compared with that charged during the summer much damage and hardship is likely to be caused to the owners if the tenants stay on during the summer months by using the device of the Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced in a haphazard, ill-thought-out and ill-conceived manner. These owners are liable to suffer a great deal of damage. Ministers seem to have failed to recognise this aspect of the problem. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole matter and come back to us, perhaps on Report, with something else, or, if he cannot do that, I should much prefer him to accept the proposal contained in the Amendment.

Mr. Evelyn King: Much of the difference of opinion in the Committee stems not from party dogma but from the difference between London and the rest of the country. I have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his interest in London. In London and many of our big towns, some of what he is now proposing is wholly necessary, and many of us on this side would support it, but, when it is applied to a place like Weymouth, it is seen to be not only irrelevant but positively harmful.
Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen know about what the Minister of Defence has recently done? I see that there is no representative of the Ministry of Defence here tonight. In Portland, in my constituency, he issued a public appeal to the citizens to make available more furnished accommodation for the increased number of Navy personnel about to be stationed there. If that appeal is responded to, as I hope it will be, the lettings will all be for very short periods. It is most odd that one Minister should make that appeal while another Minister makes it extremely difficult to answer.
Royal Navy men, officers, petty officers and seamen, have for many years depended to a large extent on furnished lettings. I mention the Navy particularly because of its presence in my constituency, but this applies also to Army and Air Force men in just the same way. They are always on the move, liable to be posted away at short notice, and they are constantly taking houses for six months, a year or two years.
Another habit of serving officers and N.C.O.s, a good habit, is that towards the end of their career, many of them will buy a house. Having bought their houses, perhaps in their middle 30's they may be stationed in Gibraltar, Cyprus or where-ever it may be, and they will let their houses for six months at a time. When opportunity offers, they will come home, often with their families, and expect to find a home to come to in Britain. If the effect of the Bill were to be that those homes were not open to them, real hardship would be caused.
People are entitled to compensation for such hardship. What about the serving officer's wife or serving seaman's wife who


comes home to have her baby in her own house? That house is suddenly not available because the tenant insists on staying. She may have to go to a nursing home or hospital and be put to extra expense. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the person illegally occupying someone else's house should make to the rightful owner some compensation for it?

Mr. Harold Lever: Why does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the judge will not give possession?

Mr. King: The judge has to have regard to the degree of hardship. Perhaps the tenant has six children and the owner has only one. It may be 12 months, or even 23 months if the order comes up in the last month of next year, before possession is given. At best, it will be three months before the case comes before the court at all, and during those three months additional hardship will be suffered. Another person similarly placed may have to bear the cost of storage of furniture or moving into an hotel. These are all unfair expenses.
Those fortunate enough to be able to do so—I am thinking now of the man with £1,000 a year or more—have made an enormous effort to keep up their mortgage repayments to satisfy the natural ambition of men to provide a permanent home for his family. They have made that sacrifice, but when the moment comes when they really want it they cannot get entry into their own homes. The feckless enjoy that for which the prudent pay. Hon. Members opposite must understand that that is real hardship, and it is reasonable that some payment should be made in compensation for it.
The second type of person whose interests I must defend is the one who

lets furnished flats or rooms to holiday makers. I received a letter yesterday, one of a very large correspondence, which I have sent to the right hon. Gentleman, to which I am sure he will return a courteous answer. But what answer is there? The writer said that he lived in Weymouth and during the winter let his flats at a low rental, and those tenants were all due to go out in April or May, and from then on he had no fewer than 10 lets for 10 days, a fortnight or three weeks right through the summer to holiday makers coming into Weymouth for a good time, and if any one of those tenants was as much as three days late—I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) will not suggest that a county court judge would give a decision within three days—somebody's holiday would be spoilt. Resentment will come not only from those who make their living from the tourist industry but from holiday makers whose holidays could be spoilt.

To go back to where I started, the trouble with the Bill is that it is a cockney Bill. I have a great admiration for cockneys—I like them—but it is a cockney Bill and we have a cockney Government. However, I hope that, because of their sense of generosity, the Government will think of places which are not London and not big cities, places where the Bill is not merely irrelevant but actually positively harmful to a living legitimately earned by the people I seek to help.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 156.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[11.58 p.m.]


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Costain, A. P.
Higgins, Terence L.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crawley, Aidan
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Curran, Charles
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.


Biffen, John
Foster, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bingham, R. M.
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Jopling, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Glyn, Sir Richard
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John


Chataway, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Longden, Gilbert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh (Hendon, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian


Cole, Norman
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. (Morecambe)
McLaren, Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Hawkins, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Patrick




Mathew, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Maude, Angus E. U.
Pym, Francis
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Temple, John M.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Mitchell, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


More, Jasper
Roots, William
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Murton, Oscar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Weatherill, Bernard


Peel, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Whitelaw, William


Peyton, John
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Spearman, Sir Alexander



Pitt, Dame Edith
Stainton, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Studholme, Sir Henry
Mr. Batsford and Mr. Ian Fraser.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hattersley, Ray
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)


Beaney, Alan
Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, Maurice


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bessell, Peter
Horner, John
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bradley, Tom
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, E. G.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Reynolds, Gerald


Buchanan,Richard(Gl'sg'w,Spr'burn)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richard, Ivor


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin
Robinson,Rt.Hn.K.(St.Pancras,N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crosland, Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Solomons, Henry


Dell, Edmund
Ledger, Ron
Steele, Thomas


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Driberg, Tom
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stones, William


Dunnett, Jack (Nottingh'm, Central)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Ensor, David
McCann, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, James
Thornton, Ernest


Fitch, Alan
MacDermot, Niall
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Varley, Eric G.


Floud, Bernard
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Marsh, Richard
Wallace, George


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Maxwell, Robert
Warbey, William


Ford, Ben
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mellish, Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, Charles


Garrow, A.
Milne, Edward (Blythe)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gregory, Arnold
Molloy, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grey, Charles
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie
Murray, Albert
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Newens, Stan



Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. George Rogers and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 7, at the end to insert:
Provided that so long as this Act applies to a dwelling, the occupier and the owner thereof shall, except so far as the court may otherwise order or direct by virtue of this subsection, be required to observe and be entitled

to the benefits of all the terms and conditions of the former tenancy.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): With the Amendment it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 4—"Recovery of possession"—and new Clause 7—"Payment by the occupier"—with the right to a Division on new Clause 7 if that is necessary.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to you, Sir Harry, for saying that we may also discuss New Clauses 4 and 7, which deal with exactly the same position. I am sure that in that way we can have a short and effective debate, because I am equally sure that the Government will accept this very reasonable tidying-up Amendment.
Amendment No. 26 contains a proviso to Clause 2(2), by which the court is given the power to impose terms and conditions when it suspends an order for possession. Of course, nine out of ten cases will not come before the court for the court to exercise that power. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is to provide a deterrent to the landlord taking any steps to evict a tenant without applying to the court, but that does not necessarily mean that every case will come before the court.
The landlord will know that if he brings before the court certain cases in which he is unable to prove hardship to himself, and so on, the tenant will have the 12 months' extension of his right to occupy. Therefore, the parties will not come before the court except in rare cases where there is disagreement. If the parties do not come before the court, the relationship between them as landlord and tenant having come to an end, they are in some sort of suspended state.
The Bill deals with the position, and only with the position, when a tenancy has come to an end. It does not deal with the position when a tenancy exists and there are rights between landlord and tenant. Therefore, it is dealing with a position in which there are no existing rights. Had the Bill said, for example, that when the order for possession is suspended, there shall be a statutory tenancy, we should have known the position; the terms and conditions of the previous tenancy would have continued. But it does not say that. It not only leaves us in suspense about the order for possession, but it leaves us in suspense as to the rights between the parties.
My suggested proviso at the end of subsection (2) would state specifically that the terms of the previous tenancy continue as between the parties until the court makes an order. In nine cases out of ten, perhaps in 99 out of 100, the

court will never need to make an order because the case will never come before it. The tenants would rest upon the proviso that the terms of the tenancy continue and the occupier would have his extension by consent for the further six or 12 months or whatever term they agree between them.
New Clause 4 deals with the position of suspended rights as between landlord and tenant. The Bill leaves us in doubt about what the rights are when a tenancy has come to an end and an order for recovery is, or can be, suspended by virtue of the Bill. Those of us who have debated housing matters again and again in the House and in Committee were familiar at one stage with the phrase "the unexpended balance of development value". I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary remembers it. In the Bill, we now have "the suspended balance of an uncontrolled tenancy". By these Amendments, I am endeavouring to explain what the Bill means by that and to state clearly the rights as between the parties. New Clause 4 is only another effort towards that.
New Clause 7 raises a point which, I hope, will dispel a cause of great bitterness between landlord and tenant. When a landlord serves a notice to quit, many tenants think that that ends the payment or rent for them. They get the notice to quit and they cease to pay rent. Certainly, when the notice to quit expires they cease to pay rent. The landlord does not dare to take rent from them in case it is implied that he is giving them a further tenancy.
That is not implied when the landlord continues to take rent from a controlled tenant. In that case, it is clear in law that he runs no risk, because he cannot do anything else. He cannot get the tenant out and, therefore, it is only reasonable that he should continue to take rent from the tenant.
Again, however, the Bill does not convert the occupier into a controlled tenant. I do not know what the position may be if the landlord, instead of going to the court and cluttering it up, agrees to let his occupier carry on and he collects from the occupier payment equal to the rent that he was paying before under his tenancy.
12.15 a.m.
What is to be the position then? Is he running the risk of creating a new tenancy, or is he merely holding this period of suspension? Looking at it from the tenant's point of view, is he right in paying the rent that he has been paying? Does he continue to pay that to the landlord under this suspension order? If we do not put something in the Bill which makes this point clear—and I submit that my new Clause 7 makes it clear—the result will be that both the landlord and the tenant will take the case to court for this to be decided.
We can avoid that if we put in the Bill exactly what the rights of the parties will be during this period of suspension, and they need never go to court to get these conditions settled. They can agree the matter between themselves and let the period run for the twelve months which the tenant might well get if he goes to court.
New Clause 7 is not breaking new ground. This has been put in previous legislation, and I have merely adjusted the wording for this Bill.

Mr. MacColl: I think the position is as stated by the hon. Gentleman. A statutory tenancy is not created. We do not think that it is necessary to have a statutory tenancy. In fact, we think it is better that there should not be one. There is enough confusion in the rent laws without creating another statutory tenancy as a sort of parallel to those which exist in other legislation. What there is, is a suspended order after notice to quit, and the position is that on the expiry of the notice to quit the tenancy is determined and there is now a continuation after that tenancy.
I do not think that there is any difficulty about the rights and duties of the parties. It is clear that the landlord must continue to provide existing services, and we discussed that at some length on Clause 1. It is fairly clear that he is in a position to know what is required in the way of the services and terms that existed at the time.
The tenant is in the position of knowing that if he does not fulfil the terms on which he has obtained the suspension order it can be varied, and he may find

himself out more quickly, or paying a higher rent, or paying off arrears, or whatever it is, so both parties have a clear idea of what they are required to do, and there is a sanction to see that they do it.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman talked about when the tenant had obtained the suspension order. I am trying to deal with the position before he has it, and he need never go to court to get it.

Mr. MacColl: The landlord will go on with the services which he provides. That comes under Clause I. He continues to do that on the expiry of the notice to quit. If, before the tenant gets to court, he gets into arrears with his rent, or breaks what have been the previous conditions of the tenancy, he is likely to find himself in difficulties about that when he gets to court. If they do not go to court—and one hopes that in most cases they will not, but will settle it—that will be a matter of understanding between the parties, and it will not be covered by the suspension order, because there will not be one.

Mr. Allason: Surely the difficulty arises where the notice to quit has expired and before it goes to court. The landlord is frequently advised not to accept rent, because it would create a new tenancy if he did. New Clause No. 7 is designed to meet that case. We want to know what the conditions will be during the interim period. It is equally difficult for the tenant if he has put money on one side because the landlord will not accept it; he knows that at some stage he will have to pay it.

Mr. MacColl: That point has been put by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I was developing my argument, and I had not reached new Clause No. 7. I had got to the stage, first, where the landlord does not go to court at all, because there is an agreement between the parties which gets over the difficulty. In those cases there will not be a suspension order. There will be a new tenancy, or the tenant may agree to go out at the end of a given period. That does not involve the court.
The next stage is where the landlord goes to court. In those cases I was saying that the landlord must in the meantime continue to provide the same services. The tenant is under an obligation to pay for those services, and to pay the rent as before, because if he does not the sanction on him would be, if and when the case goes to court, that his action will affect the terms of the suspension order.

Sir J. Hobson: rose—

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) interrupted me before I got to the point he was making. I get into trouble at one moment for being too short in my explanation; I am now trying to make a longer explanation and I still get into trouble.
The criticism of the Amendment is that if we leave the position as it is in the Bill, without the provision contained in the Amendment, there is no need for the new Clause No. 4. In the Amendment the hon. Gentleman had provided something which looks like a statutory tenancy, and in new Clause No. 4 he proposes to remove a good deal of it, so that there is no estate or interest. But if we do not have the Amendment we do not need the new Clause.
On new Clause No. 7 I am advised—I would not attempt to advise the Committee on my own initiative, because I am not qualified—that it is a piece of folklore to imagine that if a landlord accepts rent after a notice to quit has expired he is creating a new tenancy. It depends on the intentions of the parties. If the landlord is accepting the payment without any intention of creating a new tenancy he is not at risk of its being said that a new tenancy has been created.
But the other side of the story is where there is an intention to create a new tenancy when the rent is accepted. It might be that at that time the parties intended that a new tenancy should be created. Under New Clause No. 7 it would be impossible for the court to construe the actions of the parties as indicating the intent to create a new tenancy. My advice on the new Clause is that the present position is clear, and that provided the intention is made clear

when the payments are accepted they do not prejudice the position of the landlord when the final terms of the suspension order are made.
The Amendment and the new Clauses do not help us; they make things a little more complicated, and it would be wiser not to accept them.

Sir J. Hobson: I was disappointed when the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer at all, but I am more disappointed with the answer he has now given. He has not faced the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put forward.
In the whole of these proceedings, it seems to be envisaged that everyone will rush to the courts on every occasion, but there is a position between going to the court and doing nothing. Of course the tenant is all right, but we had hoped that the Government would try to seek justice between the landlord and the tenant. The other Parliamentary Secretary says that the object is to tilt the balance in favour of the tenant, but we have also to look at the position of the landlord. I should have thought that he would be at grave risk in accepting rent if he does not want possession but is content to allow the tenant to stay. Suppose that there are repairing covenants on the property, what happens then at the end of the tenancy? The landlord is no longer bound by those covenants.
The landlord may be quite content to allow the tenant to stay because he knows that he would not get an order from the county court; the tenant would get a suspended order. It is a waste of money to ask for possession because the tenant will get a suspended order anyway. The tenant gets the services and is to go on having them. The landlord is at risk if he accepts a tender of rent because if he accepts rent as such that creates a tenancy. The tenant may be left in possession and the landlord can say, "The Statute allows you to stay, but it does not say that I have to repair the premises. The roof may fall round your neck".
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the position which he has entirely overlooked, the case in which the landlord is quite happy for the tenant to stay but he does not want to ask for a suspended order. It can happen that the


ordinary terms go on without any new estate being created.

Mr. Lubbock: I take the view that it would be a good thing to try to prevent unnecessary litigation under the Bill. I see some force in the arguments of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on this score, and I wonder if there is a simpler way of dealing with the problem.
When a tenancy comes to an end the landlord may apply to the court for possession, or he may decide that he does not desire possession immediately and will allow the tenant to remain in possession, perhaps for a year. If he applied for possession and the court allowed it, the maximum discretion they would have would be to suspend it for 12 months. Why should we not provide that where a tenancy comes to an end and the landlord allows the tenant to remain in the premises for a year, at the expiry of that period he does not have to apply for an order? That would avoid the application to the court, which I think is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We do not want the courts to be cluttered up with unnecessary disputes between landlords and tenants.
The tenant in that case would know that he had a year in which to look for alternative accommodation, and that is the maximum which the court would award him if he went to litigation. This would be a simple solution which would not need the amount of wording there is in Amendment No. 26. I am not a lawyer, and it would be difficult for me to suggest how this might be dealt with, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary could find the necessary wording to provide for this solution on Report.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Cole: It has been emphasised that this is a temporary Measure, but, with respect to the Parliamentary Secretary's advisers, it seems to me that the Government are de facto giving what amounts to an extension of the control system. As long as a house is up to the rateable value limit, it will be controlled under the Bill up to a period of 12 months, and then this Measure will be supervened by a new Bill.
Far from making the position less complicated, the Parliamentary Secretary, by refusing these two proposed new Clauses and the Amendment, is making it more complicated. We have the Rent Act, 1957, and the previous rent restriction Acts, so far as they have not been annulled. We have control and decontrol under the 1957 Act, with rateable values controlling the situation in London, the Metropolitan police district and beyond. This Bill extends up to a certain ceiling, and the existing position is not walking side by side with the position as regards the payment of rent and the institution of a new tenancy.
One point which seems to have been overlooked in our debate is this. If the matter is brought to the point when an application for possession is made, how is a court to interpret the actions of the parties in the absence of any written agreement as to whether they intended to create a new tenancy or not by the acceptance of rent?
Secondly, I would remind the Committee that the court may suspend the execution of the order for a period up to 12 months, as seems reasonable to the court. There is no indication that the period will necessarily be 12 months. We ought to have this clear beyond a peradventure. We have been given a kind of illegitimate temporary Measure in an attempt to do something that we all want. Surely the clearer we make it the better it will be.
We are inclined to be too theoretical in discussing these matters. We should be more practical in discussing day-to-day matters concerning landlord and tenant. People come to see me from time to time about notices to quit. They say, "The landlord is not accepting the rent." I always say, "I hope you are putting the money by." We must never overlook the fact that if there is a reconciliation the landlord may well look for his rent, and if the rent is £2 or £3 a week there is a considerable sum to find after several months. More often than not people say, "Yes, I am putting the money aside."
In this connection, the Parliamentary Secretary himself used the word "arrears". I should like to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said. We are dealing with the interim period, and I


can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that, however much the county court procedure is expedited, if this Bill means anything at all, it means that quite a lot of cases will come before the county courts. Therefore, despite the hurrying up, the period may well be more than six or eight weeks as it is at the moment. Tenants may be left with eight or ten weeks rent to pay, and if the rent is £2 or £3 a week they may have to find anything up to £25, not knowing what is going to happen.
Even though this is a quick Bill which seeks to do something that is clear to us all, it is not clear, and surely it is not difficult for the draftsmen to dot the i's and cross the t's so that people will not have to consult other statutes to ascertain the position.

Mr. Weitzman: I am a little troubled about the acceptance of rent after the notice to quit and during the interim period. There is a real danger that it might well be said that by the acceptance of rent a new tenancy had been created. I hope that the Government will consider this point.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that by this Amendment and the two proposed new Clauses we could have made it clear what kind of animal—if I may put it in that way the occupier is during this suspended period. There can be only three types. He is either a contractual tenant, a statutory tenant, or a trespasser. He cannot be anything else. I would have liked to have described him as a sort of statutory tenant, as I have described him in these Amendments, but I think it is really immaterial which he is so long as we make certain which he is. At present the Bill does not say.
Is he to be a contractual tenant and go on under his previous tenancy, paying the same rent and under the same conditions? Is he a statutory tenant under the old Rent Acts, or a statutory tenant under the new terms of this Bill? Or is he to be a trespasser? The Bill does not say, and this must mean litigation and the parties going to court in order to get their rights settled.
What we are trying to do here is to prevent the county courts being flooded with cases of this sort. There will be misunderstanding and bitterness between the parties, for instance, over rent, if after two months the tenant has spent it. This

is the sort of thing that is going to happen. The landlord is going to sit back and say, "I do not know what my agreement with you is. I am not going to repair the kitchen sink while I do not know what my position is."
This sort of thing can be settled easily between the landlord and the tenant if we state in this Bill what the relationship between them is. I hope that the Minister will think about this again. These are two rather long new Clauses and a long Amendment, but perhaps he will give us some assurance that he will try to look at this again so that parties will not be forced to go to the county court.

Mr. MacColl: I want to make it quite clear that we do not want people unnecessarily to go to the court. We are not rewriting the law of landlord and tenant—we are dealing only with the particular case where a landlord wants to put somebody out without going to the court. We are dealing with the problems which arise in getting to the court and dealing with it.
All cases where the landlord and tenant come to an understanding or have a written agreement and so create a new tenancy are not affected by this. All that is affected by this is what happens when the landlord wants to get the tenant out, and he cannot get the tenant out without going to court.

Mr. Lubbock: The Parliamentary Secretary has talked about understandings and agreements, but suppose the parties amicably arrive at an agreement that the tenant should continue in possession for another year. Would not the landlord be in the same position as if he had applied for an order? Suppose they did come to such an amicable agreement, by the end of the year could court proceedings be avoided and the landlord regain possession?

Mr. MacColl: If he makes an amicable agreement and both sides keep to the agreement, then there is no problem. If at the end of the year he then does not accept the terms of that agreement and he does not leave, then the landlord has to go to court and start his court proceedings. By then we would expect to have the new Act, and it would be dealt with under that Act. But nothing in this Act affects the freedom of the landlord and tenant


to make some agreement about staying on, or negotiating for a new tenancy, so I do not think there really is any difficulty about this at all. As for looking at this matter again, I am not prepared to make any undertaking that I will bring anything forward on Report, but if I find that there is need to do something, I will. At the moment I am satisfied that the position is quite clear.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
My purpose is to give the Government an opportunity of expressing their intentions about the rest of the proceedings.

Mr. Crossman: We seem to be going on very nicely and quietly. It seems to me that if we continue in such a steady way we shall make very satisfactory progress with the Bill between now and breakfast-time. While this side of the Committee is in good fettle I suggest that we continue with the Bill. I shall be glad to see hon. and right hon. Members opposite continue on the same basis and see us safely through the night.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is normal for a Minister to indicate how far he wishes to progress with a Bill.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that it was clear. We clearly must have a Report stage now, because we have accepted many Amendments. I therefore suggest that we complete the Committee stage tonight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is, of course, the Government's responsibility when they so arrange their business that important matters of this kind have to be conduced at this late hour. If the Government so arrange things, they have the power to do so, though I do not think that many people, and particularly those who have listened to our discussions in the last half hour or so, would think that a Bill of this highly technical nature is very suitable for discussion at this hour of the night.
I have the greatest respect for the Parliamenary Secretary and his abilities, but is has been perfectly plain that

he has been unable to answer points raised by my hon, and right hon. and learned Friends, deprived of the assistance of a Law Officer. At 12.40 in the morning that is not surprising. There are many important Clauses still ahead of us but if the Minister and the Government persist in arranging what they themselves regard as important business at this hour it is not for us to do other than continue to do our duty by the Bill. But those of our fellow citizens whose lives and whose rights will be affected by the provisions of the Bill will not, when they are aware of it, think it satisfactory that these matters should be dealt with by an overworked and fatigued Government at one o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Crossman: If the right hon. Gentleman speaks of fatigue, he should speak for himself. I find no sign of fatigue on this side of the Committee. As for public opinion outside and its estimate of our proceedings, I thought that we all agreed on Second Reading that this was an emergency Measure which should be got through as fast as possible. It will be judged by the public whether the Opposition have been helpful in accelerating the progress of the Bill or not. It is still open to them to save their reputation. If they wish to give the public an impression of urgency, they could do better than they have done in the last two hours.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman takes that line he should study the OFFICIAL REPORT—

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Is it in order for this dialogue to take place? I understood that there was a Motion before the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): I do not think that anything that is out of order has happened.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would ask the Minister to note—

Mr. William Hamilton: Is not there a Motion before the Committee? If there is, is the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), or indeed my right hon. Friend, entitled to speak twice on the Motion without leave of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is somewhat mistaken. The House is still in Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the Minister, who is just as little or as much in order as I am, will reflect on his last observation, it is a fact—and I make no complaint about it—that his own hon. Friends have taken a considerable part of the time of the Committee, quite properly, to discuss an important matter. In those circumstances, it would not be for him to make the insinuation which I thought he did make and which he may regret. He may also regret some of the replies which have been given from the Treasury Bench when he comes to study HANSARD the day after tomorrow.
12.45 a.m.
So far as fatigue is concerned, he may not know that medical science shows that the most dangerous form of it is that which is experienced by those who are not aware of it. Again, when he studies HANSARD the right hon. Gentleman may well find that his own observations fully bear out the truth of that medical fact. However, as I do not want to add to the fatigue of the right hon. Gentleman or to that of his colleagues who are showing signs of strain. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 8, after "court", to insert:
upon being satisfied that the circumstances by reference to which the suspension aforesaid or the last preceding variation thereof was made have substantially changed since the date of such suspension or variation (as the case may be)".
I do not want to detain the Committee on this Amendment, because, even despite the fatigue about which we have just heard, the Amendment and its objective, is obvious. It is designed to ensure against irresponsible vexatious, and repetitious applications to the county court. I recall the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary on the last Amendment that the county court should not be cluttered up with unnecessary work because of the operation of this Bill or any other Act.
This is a really useful Amendment and I do ask the Government to give it serious consideration. It is designed

simply to clarify the position where, in a previous application to the county court, a tenant has been given a suspension up to a certain date and where, I submit, the landlord has a right to count on getting possession at that date unless there are changes in circumstances since the matter was before the county court. The Government would agree that the management of houses is a matter of public interest in so far as houses should not be kept empty because people do not keep to the obligations imposed upon them by the county courts or otherwise.
What we say is that, unless there has been a change of circumstances, there is a strong case for the county court not accepting any application for a further hearing, but enabling the landlord to rely on the date in the original order of the court.

Mr. MacColl: Our view is that this Amendment might have the opposite effect to that which has been suggested in that it might weaken the flexibility of these proceedings. A situation might arise where the whole point was that there has been no change in circumstances. Suppose a county court judge had looked at the situation in the hope that there would be a change in, say, three months' time and, therefore, made a suspension order for three months. The very fact that nothing had happened might, if this Amendment were carried, mean that the judge would make it for a longer period. If the judge suspected that, then he would presumably have made the suspension for, say, six months on the first occasion. That would not be in the interests of the landlord.
Limiting the power of the judge in this way is not helpful and our view is that the best way is to leave matters entirely to him, avoiding any abuse of his functions by people continually going to him. The judge should have full flexibility to make variations and not have imposed on him an artificial limitation such as there would be if the law ruled that a change of circumstances must be established.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 3, line 16, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:
(a) whether there have been substantial breaches by the occupier of his obligations under the present tenancy.


As the Clause is drafted, there is a possibility of some of the small print in agreements tripping up tenants who may be unaware of some of the detailed obligations included in their leases. I do not think it would be the intention of this Committee that a tenant should be at fault in that for some technical and trivial reason he did not fulfil some minor point in his lease. I have used the words "substantial breaches" because there are the words used in Section 30(1,c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. It would seem useful and helpful that the same wording should appear here.

Mr. MacColl: I should like to make this point to my hon. Friend. It is one which comes in all this part of the Bill. We are not dealing here with conditions which have got to be meticulously fulfilled before the tenant can retain possession. We are dealing only with things which are guides to the court as to the attitude it should adopt. Therefore I do not think there is any need to have this gloss on what the court is going to do. The court is going to look at the matter reasonably, saying, "This is such a small breach it would be unreasonable to take it into account". I think the court will behave in a reasonable, humane and intelligent manner about it, and I do not think my hon. Friend's Amendment is really necessary.

Mrs. Jeger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Lever: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "or other contract for the occupation".
The Amendment is to restrict the matter of offer of a contract to a tenant.

Mr. Crossman: We see no reason for not accepting this Amendment. These are words left in from a previous law. We see no reason why they should not he left out here.

Mr. Graham Page: Do not these words refer to furnished lettings? If I could have the attention of the Minister, do not these words refer to furnished lettings? Are not these words in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act—a contract for occupation of a house not a tenancy?

If furnished dwellings are to be left in, are not these the appropriate words?

Mr. Crossman: The reason why we are willing that they should be left out is that we may be asking a tenant to accept something less than a tenancy. This we are willing to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 21, after the second "premises" to insert:
or other suitable alternative accommodation.
Encouraged by the result of the last Amendment, I will be so brief as to say, "I move".

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.

Mr. Harold Lever: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 24.
There is no need to add to what I have already said.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 28, at the end to insert:
(e) whether the premises or a substantial part thereof are to be demolished redeveloped or substantially reconstructed and such work cannot be reasonably carried out without the owner obtaining possession thereof.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 35 in page 3, line 28, at the end to insert:
(e) whether the industry, profession or occupation in which the occupier or the prospective tenant is or will be engaged will be adversely affected if the execution of the order for possession is suspended.
Amendment No. 36, in line 28, at the end to insert:
(e) whether any prospective tenant to whom the premises will be let will be caused hardship by the suspension of the execution of the order for possession.
and Amendment No. 37, in line 28, at the end to insert:
(e) whether the dwelling is required by the owner for occupation as a residence by some person engaged or to be engaged in the full-time employment of the owner and is a dwelling of which the occupier became tenant in


consequence of employment and has ceased to be in that employment.

Mr. Corfield: This series of Amendments comprises additions to the special factors which are enumerated in Clause 2(4) to which the county courts are enjoined to have special regard in an application of this sort. I appreciate that there is a certain difficulty in drafting a Clause of this type in that if one puts in too few factors there is said to be too little guidance to the court in the matter in which it exercises its discretion, and if one puts in too many they generally tend to be interpreted as entirely exclusive. But I submit that at least these particular factors deserve attention.
1.0 a.m.
Amendment No. 34, is designed to ensure that, where the suspension of the order would lead to delay in desirable development, this ought to be taken into account. Occasions can arise when a house is one of a row, the remainder of the neighbouring properties being all empty and ready for demolition, and that one house is holding up the process because of the tenant staying beyond the termination of his tenancy. This is a factor which should be taken into account in the public interest as well as the landlord's interest.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 are closely linked, both being designed to ensure that, where a dwelling is required for some employee vital to the business or industry—we have agriculture in mind here—this also should be taken into account by the county court in considering whether a notice should be suspended and whether the availability of the premises for another tenant should be delayed.
Amendment No. 36 is somewhat related in that it would require the county court to take into acount the hardship which might result to a prospective tenant with whom arrangements had already been made. One can think of many cases involving properties let on relatively short terms—we have already mentioned the holiday letting—in respect of which it is customary and, indeed, essential to be able to give a definite date to the incoming tenant.
I hope that, even at this late hour, the hon. Gentleman will regard these as

serious Amendments. We are endeavouring to make constructive suggestions.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I suggest that the points in Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are sufficiently covered by paragraph (d) as the subsection stands and are covered also by the provision at the beginning of the subsection, that the court shall have regard to all the circumstances. For this reason, I regard them as superfluous.
I feel some sympathy with the object of Amendment No. 36, the case of the proposed new tenant whose prospect of a tenancy is affected by a suspension. However, I think that the Committee will agree that the wording of the Amendment goes far too wide. If any regard is to be paid to this factor, it should be confined to cases in which there is in being a contract to let the premises concerned.

Mr. Mellish: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for the way in which he moved the Amendment. I take the point—we all do—that there are many cases of hardship which could be catalogued in the Clause. However, we think that as the Bill now reads—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is right—we have given sufficient examples to the judges of the intentions of Parliament. I do not quarrel with anything the hon. Member has said. There is no disagreement here on the point of principle. It is a question only of whether it is logical to write everything of this kind into the Bill. If we agreed with the hon. Gentleman, there would be no reason why we could not think of more to write in on Report.
We appreciate the desire of the Opposition to write into the Bill as much protection as is possible, but we believe, on the legal advice given to us, that because of the way the Bill is worded, what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do is unnecessary. Apart from paragraph (d), it is stated at the beginning of subsection (4) that the court shall have regard to all the circumstances. We bear in mind what was said earlier by a right hon. Gentleman about the common sense and knowledge of judges in dealing with these matters. We say that these are arguments which will be properly adduced by those who are putting the case for these people. We


do not think it right or necessary to put into the Bill what the hon. Gentleman asks us to do. For that reason, we ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Cole: I do not think that that reply covers everything. This Bill, which is being brought in as an emergency Measure, is redolent all through of the question of suspending orders for possession. Any magistrate will take note of that. The title of the Bill will be an indication to him. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that judges take notice of the proceedings in the House of Commons. It is axiomatic and quite proper that they do not take notice of what goes on here, and we do not take note of what goes on in court. We look at the end product and arrange accordingly.
I do not want to proliferate the various hardships. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned two, the case of the person who might want the premises demolished, and the case of a third party. Since judges take no notice of what goes on in this House—

Mr. Mellish: Oh, really.

Mr. Cole: —they are not supposed to—surely it is not asking too much—though I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary about not proliferating these things—for something to be added by the Government dealing with hardship to the landlord or some other party who may be taking possession. The term "greater hardship" is far too comprehensive to be capable of interpretation by a judge. In other words, it might just as well not be there. It will not mean anything to anybody.

Mr. Corfield: I would make one further plea with regard to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I said I accepted the difficulty about how long a catalogue should be put in this type of Clause, but looking at the items which are catalogued, and having in mind the earlier debate on the agricultural tied cottage, I would hope that a combination of these or a redrafted version incorporating the same idea would appeal to the Minister in his fulfilment of the undertaking which we now understand he has given to the National Farmers' Union on the subject. This is basically the same approach, although a good deal simpler, as that of

Amendment No. 33 which we mentioned when we were discussing the Amendment to leave out Clause 1(5). I hope that at least we shall have an assurance that the Government will reconsider this suggestion, or a redrafted version incorporating this idea, because it is every bit as important as the items which are enumerated and, if it is left out, that is bound to give the impression to anybody endeavouring to interpret the Bill that it was meant to be left out.

Mr. Mellish: We have given the assurance about agricultural tied cottages, as a consequence of our discussions with the N.F.U., and my right hon. Friend has announced what he intends to do on Report. There is no limit to the sort of things we could include. I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that we are quite sincere about this and that we have carefully considered what should be included, with special reference to Amendment No. 36. The hon. Gentleman was my predecessor and he will know that we have been well advised, and our advice is that the Amendment is unnecessary and that we must have confidence in the courts. For that reason, I must decline his suggestion.

Mr. Evelyn King: All the references have been to Amendment No. 36, because of the shortage of land in London, but Amendment No. 34 is important. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that that is, or will be, included in the wording which will ultimately appear in the Bill?

Mr. Graham Page: I cannot feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with these matters simply by studying what is already in the Bill. I appreciate that subsection (4) says that the court is to have regard to all the circumstances, but it goes on to particularise certain circumstances. We all know perfectly well that when a Statute does that, it excludes the more general words. If we start to set out particular items which we wish the court to take into account, we weaken the general words. If none of these things had been set out and the court had been asked to take all circumstances into account, it might have taken into account those set out in the Amendments.
The provision into which the Parliamentary Secretary has swept all the Amendments is the hardship provision, paragraph (d), but "hardship" is a word well known to the courts. It has been tested again and again in rent cases. It is personal hardship, hardship between the parties. Does demolition of the premises come under that? Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that it would be right for the court to take account of demolition, the desire for the property to be demolished and reconstructed? If he does, under which paragraph will that come? 
Does he consider that it would be right to take account of the industry, profession or occupation in which the occupier or prospective tenant was engaged? If so, under which paragraph would that come? The paragraph would not be that dealing with hardship, because the courts would not interpret hardship as applying to those matters. The provision proposed in Amendment No. 36 to deal with cases where the prospective tenant will be caused hardship, not one of the parties, would not be covered by paragraph (d) and the same argument applies to Amendment No. 37.
None of these will come into the particularised items of subsection (4). Having set out these items, the right hon. Gentleman has deprived the general words of their full power and meaning and he ought therefore to include the items in the Amendments, as well as those already in the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 3, line 31, to leave out "removal" and to insert "removing or warrant".

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 48—in Clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out "removal" and insert "removing or warrant".

Mr. MacArthur: This is purely a drafting Amendment. Paragraph (a) of subsection (5) refers to
a decree of removal or of ejection …
whereas Section 38 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, refers to a

… decree of removing and warrant of objection.
The purpose of the Amendment is simply to bring the Bill into line with the provisions of the 1907 Act.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The Amendments bring the terminology of this Bill into line with that of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, and we are prepared to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: Subsection (1) of the Clause refers to bringing proceedings before the court for an order suspending the order for possession. What is not taken into account is the position where a High Court order for possession has already been obtained when this Measure comes into effect. If an owner holds a High Court possession order he cannot enforce it under subsection (1). If he tries to do so, he is committing a criminal offence. But if he goes to the county court to enforce it, it seems to me that he must start all over again, because all that the county court can extend or suspend is an order of "the" court, and that, as defined later in the Bill, means the county court. Therefore, the county court has no power under this subsection to suspend the High Court order. Yet the man who holds that order can do nothing with it.
When a High Court order has already been obtained when the Bill comes into effect, we should give the county court the power to receive applications to suspend, if necessary, that High Court order. Otherwise, the man has to start all over again with his order for possession in the county court and then his application to suspend.

Mr. Weitzman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for mentioning that case, because I have a constituent who is in exactly that position at the moment. An order for possession was made by the High Court in July of this year. It was suspended until this month, and is at the moment suspended. The effect of subsection (1) is that the order, being a High Court order, cannot be affected


by the provisions of the subsection. I hope that something can be done about that.

Mr. Cole: I should like to know what will be the position in regard to a court order for possession that is made some time in the next few weeks, when the period does not expire before the Bill is enacted. Under subsection (3), is it open to the court then to suspend, as I hope that it is, the period of possession up to the maximum of 12 months from either the latter date when the matter comes before it or the nearer date, or is it entirely outwith the ambit of the court because the original action was not taken under the Bill?

Sir J. Hobson: I should like the Minister to consider this problem which arises from the Clause. The power of the court to grant an order for the withdrawal from the occupier of any specified services or furniture depends upon whether an order for suspension or execution of the order has been made. It is clear from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in an earlier debate that he has not contemplated the situation that would arise if the landlord did not want to make a new arrangement and did not want to apply for possession. Surely, there should be a process by which application can be made to the court and it would have power to make an order for the withdrawal of services or furniture without the landlord having to seek, first, possession and, then, a suspension order. Perhaps this is merely a drafting point, but it may be of considerable importance.
While we have set out in subsection (4) a number of provisions about the basis on which the county court judge is to proceed in considering whether to suspend an order, he is given no directions about the withdrawal of services or of furniture. The whole thing is left entirely in the air. The county court judge is not directed to consider whether it is reasonable.

Mr. Crossman: That is a perfectly reasonable point and we will certainly consider it before Report. The same applies also to the problem of the High Court order. We have been uneasily aware that, almost certainly, the situation

at present is that it is unenforceable, in the sense that it is not suspended. This position must be tidied up and I promise to consider it.
I remind the Committee that I have given an assurance that before Report we will put down a new paragraph (e) to subsection (4) dealing with the special conditions for agricultural land. That undertaking still holds.

Mr. Cole: Would the Minister care to say whether his remark about the High Court also applies to an area county court decision yet to be given? That was the point I raised.

Mr. Crossman: I think the answer is that it does. We will look into that as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATION OF FOREGOING SECTIONS.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 3, line 37, at the end to insert:
(a) a tenancy of premises in respect of which a contract for sale or letting with vacant possession was made prior to 13th November 1964, and in respect of which the vendor or the prospective lessor (as the case may be) had at the time of the contract the right to obtain possession on or before the date fixed for completion of the sale or the commencement of the letting.
This Amendment is intended to meet the case where, before the Bill was published, the owner of property has entered into a contract for sale of the property or for letting the property, in either case with vacant possession, relying on the fact that he could get vacant possession under the law at the time he entered into the contract. It may not be that he would get vacant possession at the time he entered into the contract to sell or to let but that, at the time the contract fell to be completed, he had the right to obtain possession.
If the Bill comes into operation, the owner would find that he had contracted to do something which the law now says he cannot do. To that extent, the Bill would be retrospective. One cannot expect the owner of every property to gaze into the crystal and see what the Government intend to do at some future


time. In the Amendment I have chosen the date on which the Bill was published. I do not wish to protect the person who has had an opportunity of reading the Bill and has then sold his property with vacant possession when there is a tenant in it. I wish to protect the man who has taken action in reliance on the law as it stood before the Bill was published—in fact, as it stands today, but today he knows that it is going to be altered. Before 13th November he could not have had a clue as to when the Bill might come in, or how it might alter the law.
There are many cases—I have been informed of them in practice, and I have some of them in my office—where a contract of sale has been entered into before anyone knew the contents of the Bill. Those contracts were entered into in reliance on the fact that the tenant was obliged to go. He had been given notice, his tenancy was ending, and he would be obliged to go before the owner had to complete. I think that we ought to avoid retrospective legislation, and specifically in this Bill relieve the hardship which will fall not only on the owner who has contracted to sell in that way, but on the purchaser as well, or the prospective tenant.
I am sure that all those who have had anything to do with the purchase and sale of houses in the last few years knows that this is a chain event. Seldom is there one transaction at a time. There is a whole chain of contracts for sale all being completed at or about the same time, with owners moving from house to house. It may well be that unless we relieve the man who has entered into a contract in that way we shall cause hardship not only to the parties to the contract, but to many others in the chain of events which surrounds that contract.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman has put his case very persuasively. The difficulty is that the Amendment would take these cases completely out of the Bill. If they are left in the Bill, there is no direction that the court cannot give possession. In other words, it is open to the court to act and to give possession where a contract of that sort has been entered into, and where, in the view of the court, the tenant ought to have gone out because he knew that he was supposed to go out. It is better to leave that end of it to the discretion

of the court rather than have the exclusion of this kind of case from the Bill.
I think that in some cases there may be a risk of evasion. It may not always be possible to be sure when the contract was executed. It might be given an earlier date.

Mr. Cole: Oh, dear.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman says "Oh, dear". We are dealing with people who can be extremely ruthless and unscrupulous.

Mr. Graham Page: We are also dealing with honest genuine people. We do not want to penalise them with the few who may be swindling as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. MacColl: The difficulty is that one has to cast the net wide if one is to be certain of getting in the cases which have to be watched. The courts have to be given facilities to sort out the sheep from the goats. That is the idea of the Bill. The best person to do that is the judge. In my opening remarks many hours ago I said that the idea behind the Bill was to have a wide net to collect people into the Bill for protection, but to allow a good deal of discretion as to what happens to them at the other end. That is the right approach to the problem. It is better to leave it to the court to sort out these matters rather than to exclude them absolutely.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I find that a most profoundly unsatisfactory statement. I realise that it is half-past one in the morning, but it was not the sort of statement that I would have expected from the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will apply his mind a little more to the issues in the case.
First, this is a clear example of retrospective legislation—the clearest we could possibly have. I have heard it said many times in recent months by the Labour Party—and particularly by the Lord Chancellor in another place—that it intended to support the view that we have supported on these benches, that retrospective legislation of this or any other kind would not be introduced at all. Indeed, in fairness to the Government, in quite a number of instances they


have sought recently to uphold that principle.
In this case nobody suggests that a contract of this sort could have been anticipated before the publication of the Bill. My hon. Friend and all those who are associated with him in supporting the Amendment have indicated clearly the date of 13th November as being the date of the contract. Ninety per cent. or more of those contracts will be contracts entered into between solicitors acting on behalf of the landlords on one side and the tenants on the other, in respect of contracts for sale with vacant possession prior to 13th November. They are documents in writing.
The hon. Member was talking as though all these people were a bunch of dishonest blokes. That is completely untrue. I would point out to him that the overwhelming proportion of these contracts will be normal commercial agreements. Is it really suggested by the hon. Member that the Government are legislating purely for the case of those who falsify their documents—because if they do falsify their documents and get them stamped they will in any event be guilty of a criminal offence and would be dealt with entirely separately for that.
If that is so, those who are caught will be amply dealt with for their criminal offence. There might be the odd case, but the hon. Member will surely reconsider the point, recognising that we cannot legislate for the isolated case of the swindler. The Amendment plainly states on the face of it that it deals with the normal contract, entered into commercially by clients and their solicitors in the normal course of business.
I had no intention of speaking to the Amendment, but it seemed to me as plain as a pikestaff that this would be one of those that I would be able to mark with an "A", as having been accepted. I would point out that we began this afternoon with what seemed to be a measure of reasonable understanding. This is not an emergency matter. It is not a matter on which the hon. Member has a tittle of evidence to support his view that many people have entered into some form of fraudulent contract prior to the introduction of the Bill, and in anticipation of it. In those circumstances

I venture to suggest that the Government should have second thoughts on this matter.
I support the general idea of this emergency Bill, and I agree with quite a lot of what it stands for, but I think that the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends are clearly sustainable. If the hon. Gentleman assures us that he will permit us to raise the matter again on Report and will undertake to have a word with the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General, we might be satisfied. The Solicitor-General has now woken up, but is probably not in the House, although I am sure that he can be found somewhere. Neither of the Government Law Officers has been present all day, although both the former Law Officers have been here to talk on these matters. I am convinced that if the hon. Gentleman takes proper legal advice from those who can advise Her Majesty's Government on this matter he will think again about it.

Mr. Cole: I am surprised that the Government are losing their touch—such as it was. I wonder that they did not reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that this is one more matter which has to be put under the umbrella of Clause 2(4,d) dealing with hardship. I make the Government a present of that point in case they did not think of it.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary realises that he was referring to very respectable solicitors and was suggesting that they would be parties to putting wrong dates on documents. Although it is twenty-five minutes to two o'clock in the morning, we have the responsibility of trying to make the best legislation we can. This may be only a temporary Measure, but we should peruse it properly. In this case there is a large body of honest people who, through their solicitors, have drawn up contracts to sell or let. They are prepared and ready to take the necessary action, in one case to vacate premises and, in the other, to go into them. The Government in trying to protect a great body of people will be causing harm to others. The Government rightly feel that they have a duty to tenants wrongly dispossessed, but they also have a duty to a great body of people who are buying houses quite legitimately and properly.
What is to happen to a man who signs a contract and is ready to move out of his premises into premises where the tenant goes to the court and gets a suspended order for 12 months? What happens to the prospective purchaser who has moved out of his house into temporary lodgings? I do not think the Government can kill one wrong by creating another. I hope that they will look at this matter again.

Mr. MacColl: This is not retrospective because the situation with which we are dealing is there at the time the Act comes into operation. The situation is one where someone is occupying premises and someone else is trying to get him out by force.
The Bill is about the methods used to get people out of premises; it is not about a question of legal rights. If a policeman finds someone engaged in throwing furniture out, he cannot ask to see the contract in order to discover whether it is properly stamped and has a date on it. The policeman must deal with the sort of action that is taking place. The whole object of the Bill is to see that that kind of argument is settled by the due process of the law in the courts. It would be very difficult to draft anything which would meet what I agree are difficulties without creating problems for administration.

Mr. Cole: Can the hon. Gentleman visualise a case in which a person is intending to go into the premises and all has been settled? The premises are the subject of a contract which has been engrossed and is waiting for completion and then he finds that through family difficulty he has to decide that the problem should be transferred to the owner. They go to the court and there is no question of violence or withdrawing services. They can get a suspension for at least six months, which is enough to invalidate the contract.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not understand the argument that this is not retrospective. Suppose that on 1st November a man has entered into contract to sell his property with vacant possession. On 13th November the Bill tells him that it is not a contract to sell with vacant possession, but that it is a contract to sell with a tenant in it. Is that not retrospective?
This distinguishes it entirely from all the other cases which are included in subsection (4). The other cases are consideration of hardship, whether the tenant has been looking for other premises, and so on. This case of the vendor and purchaser, of the landlord and the prospective tenant, who have contracted to sell or let with vacant possession, is distinct from the other cases.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter from the simple practical point of view of things which happen every day. This is not a case of big business transactions or anything like that. This is the case of the ordinary person selling the house in which he is living or a person buying from somebody else a house in which there is a tenant—

Mr. A. J. Irvine: What principle is it which leads the hon. Gentleman to think that the interests of the vendor and purchaser, in the case that he is putting forward, should have priority over the interests of the tenant?

Mr. Page: The vendor and purchaser have entered into this contract without the knowledge that the Government are going to bring forward a Bill of this sort. This is altering a contract which has already been entered into. I said earlier that I wished the Minister without Port-folio had been on the Government Front Bench, because he at least could have answered the legal points that we were discussing. As the third Law Officer, I should have thought that he ought to have been here. We certainly ought to have had him here during the consideration of this Amendment. He has been a practising solicitor and he would have known what this meant to clients in his office. He would have known that this is a thoroughly practical point involving ordinary people who ought not to be deprived of their rights in this way.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: If I may refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), his argument would be attractive if there were a large number of cases of the kind which he has described. But surely the vast majority of genuine prospective purchasers who are doing a deal through a solicitor's office would not enter into a contract in the circumstances in which there was a tenant—

Mr. Graham Page: Read the Amendment.

Mr. Oakes: If they did enter a contract in the way in which the hon. Member suggested, they would be as bad as the landlord who was trying to evict the tenant. To cater for the very few cases that may be involved, it opens the floodgates, because it could well happen that a company would sell to one of its directors a fraudulent contract bearing a date that had been inserted later, a document that had not gone through a solicitor's office but which was purported to have been made before the commencement of the Act. We must remember that we may have to deal with unscrupulous people.

Mr. Peter Bessell: We have had a long debate and the Liberal Party has indicated that it is very much in favour of the general principle behind the Bill.
I am somewhat troubled by this matter, however, and I feel that there is a good deal of sense in the argument that we have heard from this side of the Committee, particularly on the question of a contract that has been entered into, let us say, shortly before the introduction of the Bill. We have heard a lot about the scoundrels who are some of the worst landlords, and I accept that in many cases there are very bad landlords and that this Bill will do a great deal to curb their activities.
But not only are landlords guilty of this kind of thing. There are occasions when the tenant can be equally unscrupulous. Surely this lays the path open for an unscrupulous tenant to take advantage of the Bill, and, finding himself in a position when perhaps he had intended to give up possession previously, to realise that he can have this extra protection which he was not entitled to before and did not expect.
That is why I feel that this is retrospective, and that is why I feel the argument from this side of the Committee has been correct.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Richard: Of course, this is not retrospective in the sense in which the term is being used by the other side. All that the Bill seeks to do is to stop a landlord evicting a tenant by force.

It gives the tenant the right to stay in the premises until the landlord goes to court and gets an order. In answer to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), if one has a perfectly scrupulous agreement between honest parties before 13th November for the sale of property in which vacant possession is supposed to be given on 25th December, whether the Bill is in existence or not the prospective purchaser is in the position of having to take some action to get possession of that property.
All that the Bill is intended to say and all it does say is that on 26th December the landlord is not to be entitled to walk into the premises and pitch the tenant and his furniture out into the street, but he has to go to the county court and get an order. All this talk of retrospective legislation and the right of prospective purchasers and vendors is complete nonsense.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely the Bill encourages this tenant to stay on after 25th December. The Bill is not, as I understand it, to drive people to the courts, but to tell people what their rights are, and the Bill tells the tenant he has a right to 12 months after 25th December.

Mr. Richard: This does not give the tenant a right, but merely restricts the present rights which the landlord has under the law.

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 40 with which it is proposed to take Amendment No. 41.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that it would be right at this hour of the night to trouble the Committee with Amendment No. 40, which raises, as the Committee knows, issues of very great importance. I therefore do not propose now to move it, but I hope to have an opportunity of discussing the point raised on it at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 42, at end insert:
or a tenancy of premises in Scotland the net annual value for rating of which exceeds that sum".

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment it is proposed to take Amendment 44.

Mr. MacArthur: The Bill applies to tenancies with the upper limit governed by the County Court Act, 1959, which stands at present at £400, but there is no upper limit in the Sheriff Court in Scotland, as the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes clear, so that in Scotland the Bill, as it stands, applies to all tenancies. There does not seem to me to be any good reason for this distinction and the Amendment brings the application of the Bill to Scotland in line with its application to England. Earlier, the Minister of State for Scotland has been in agreeable and acceptable mood. I hope that that spirit continues. It should do so because the Amendment strives for Scottish legislative clarity and purity.

Mr. Willis: On this occasion, I cannot be quite so affable to the hon. Member. He suggested that the Amendment made for the purity of our Scottish law. By the Amendment the hon. Member is bringing Scottish law into line with English law for no reason at all and in doing so changing the position in Scotland. The limit fixed in Clause 3(1,a) is a limit fixed in accordance with the properties over which county courts have jurisdiction in England, but there is no limit in Scotland for properties over which the sheriff courts have jurisdiction. It therefore seems appropriate to us to keep the position in Scotland as it is.
The number of properties that would he affected by the Amendment is practically nil. A survey conducted over three-quarters of Scotland showed that there were only four houses which would be covered by this provision. I will not say which they are. Another objection to the Amendment is that it would fix a limit by reference to an English Act of 1951, a limit which would practically have no meaning. This would lead to confusion among lawyers, tenants and landlords to no purpose at all. We do not think it wise to create unnecessary confusion to serve no useful purpose. We cannot accept the Amendment for these reasons.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 3, line 44, after "1939" to insert:
or Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954".

The Temporary Chairman: It is proposed also to take Amendment No. 50 with this Amendment.

Mr. Irvine: The Amendment raises a rather narrow technical point and I need not keep the Committee a long time on it. It relates to long tenancies. As the Clause stands, it would exempt only those long tenancies which are not at a low rent, but Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954 now applies, by virtue it is true of subsequent legislation, to all long tenancies whatever the rent, whether at a low rent or not. Therefore, I think that the exemption can properly be widened in the way my Amendment proposes.

Mr. MacColl: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The Amendment improves the drafting and I am glad to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 1, leave out from "thereof" to end of line 2.—[Mr. A. J. Irvine.]

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: There is just one question which I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on this Clause. In subsection (1, a) which deals with net annual value, there appear the words "for the time being". What is meant by those words? It is a matter of concern to those who have to choose in the matter of jurisdiction at the time of commencement of court proceedings. Does it mean that if one brings on one of these cases before the county court and the net annual value changes while the case is proceeding, and goes above £400, then it ceases to be within the jurisdiction of the county court?

Mr. MacColl: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member and would like to tell him that I will give it very careful attention. I think that the answer is that it is the net annual value at the time and the state of the law at that time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(POSTPONEMENT OF DECONTROL OF FORMERLY REQUISITIONED DWELLINGS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Allason: The Act of 1955 is referred to in this Clause. It provided, among other things, measures for de-requisitioning voluntarily, and this was to be welcomed because local authorities would not have to provide another house for the tenant concerned. Here, the landlord, the local authority, and the tenant jointly agreed that a statutory tenancy should be set up.
This was amended by the 1957 Act, also referred to in the Clause, which provided that the statutory tenancy would continue until 1st April, 1965, and this made the proposition a bit more attractive. More landlords agreed to this procedure, and we had the net result that a negotiated and agreed tenancy was set up at a low rent—a rent of twice the gross value—which was below the market rent. This was given in consideration of a cash bonus to the landlord for a fixed period and was, in fact, virtually a tenancy at a low rent for a fixed period.
2.0 a.m.
The effect of this Clause is that this tenancy is extended for 12 months, and we have not heard a word yet of the justification for the breach of this contract. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said that the sole reason for the Bill was to stop evictions. I submit that this has nothing whatever to do with this Clause. If the Clause does not form part of the Bill the prevention of evictions continues exactly as before. Here we have another tenancy which expires on 1st April, 1965, and is caught under Clauses 1 and 2.
Here, for some obscure reason, no justification has been put forward at all for extending this tenancy for 12 months. This is definitely a breach of an agreement, and I am sure that no Ministers would wish to stand at that Box and announce that they intend to breach any agreement.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to be provoked at this time of night into going into the story of the 1955 Act. What I thought about that Act and its nature is on record. It never looked practical that it would be possible to remove control from those houses in 10 years. I certainly never thought that it would be possible. In the event it has been shown not to be possible, because the position is that the market in London for housing is extremely bad now, as bad, probably, as it has been for some time. There is really no argument about that, and this is purely a London problem. This does not, as do some other matters we have been dealing with, affect other parts of the country where the housing position is easier. The fact is that these people are in the houses; there is no alternative accommodation available for them; it is not possible for the local authorities to rehouse them.
All one can say about it is that it gives my hon. Friend a breathing space, an opportunity of thinking what is his next move. I do not envy him in doing that. It is a difficult situation. This is the only thing to do about it.

Mr. Graham Page: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the houses which are of a rateable value not exceeding £40, when they come out of the control of the 1955 Act, will surely become controlled in the ordinary way, so that if they are brought out of control in accordance with the bargain—if the hon. Gentleman will permit the word—made with the owner of the time in accordance with the Statute which was to last for 10 years, they will still be, if of the lower value, controlled; the tenants will still be protected. If they are above that value of £40 then they will be protected under the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that this Clause has anything to do with the Bill. The tenants will either be protected when they come out of the protection of the 1955 Act under the ordinary rent control or else they will be protected under the Bill. There seems to be no reason for extending the 1955 Statute for another 12 months.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(SHORT TITLE, DURATION AND EXTENT.)

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 47, in page 4, line 43, at the end to insert:
(3) Any proceedings in the High Court by an owner against an occupier for possession of premises to which this Act on the date on which it comes into operation applies and in which no order or judgment has been made or given by the High Court before such date shall be transferred to the appropriate county court; the Rules of the Supreme Court and of the county court shall provide for the transfer of the pleadings and files therein to the said county court and for the continuation of the action in such county court.
I can deal with this point shortly. It is surprising that the Government have introduced a Bill which contains no transitional provisions of any sort or description. This is a matter of some comment to show the way in which the Bill has been put together.
I am glad that the Minister has returned. He was good enough to say on an earlier Amendment that he would consider the position of cases in the High Court where judgment had been given and it would appear, unless steps were taken, that it would fall to the ground and would not be enforceable. I am glad that he has done that. This raises an additional point where proceedings have been started in the High Court and have not yet been completed. Surely there ought to be some arrangement by which they can be continued in the appropriate county court without all the costs, which may be considerable, up to that stage, being thrown away and the unfortunate parties who have incurred them having to begin again from the beginning. In view of the attitude which the Minister took on completed proceedings, I hope that he will give some assurance in respect of pending proceedings.

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will include this matter in any further consideration which he gives to this situation, but it is not too easy because, in the first place, it is difficult for the High Court, in making the order, to know what the net annual values were for the purpose of transposing the case to the county court. I understand that it would not necessarily have the information.
In the second place, there are already facilities whereby an action which is lodged in the High Court can be transferred to the county court, and it may be possible for the parties to use that machinery. There are drafting difficulties about providing more than that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will see whether anything more can be done.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 6, leave out "removal or" and insert "removing or warrant".—[Mr. Wylie.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(COSTS)

In any proceedings in which under the provisions of this Act a suspension of execution is ordered, the court shall award costs in favour of the tenant, unless it shall appear unreasonable in the circumstances so to do.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harold Lever: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause is obvious common sense. It is self-explanatory and I need not argue it. I hope that the Government will accept it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Graham Page: May we have an answer from the Minister? Why does he propose to accept the Clause? Or perhaps he does not propose to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Graham Page: May I speak to the Clause? The hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), whose sole contribution during the last two or three hours has been to giggle at other Members, has produced this Clause, which relates to costs which he intends to award to one side only—the tenant
unless it shall appear unreasonable in the circumstances to do so.
Surely when the court awards costs it does so in its discretion, having considered whether it is reasonable to award them to one side or the other. What is the point of putting this in the Statute? It will only prejudice one party or the


other. Cannot it be left to the discretion of the court? All through the previous Clause we were told, "Leave it to the discretion of the court". Now the Government are to accept the Clause—

Mr. MacColl: No.

Mr. Page: No? I am satisfied that heads are being shaken. So I will sit down.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(CONTROL OF MORTGAGES.)

(1) The Rent Acts shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more dwellings to which the provisions of this Act apply.

(2) In this Act the expression "the Rent Acts" shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 49(1) of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954, or as respects Scotland by section 39(1) of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act 1954.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The point of the Clause is very simple. In previous rent Acts it has always been said that, if a mortgagor cannot get possession of his house from controlled tenants, then the mortgagee should not be permitted to get possession from the mortgagor. This is a perfectly reasonable and sensible proposition which found its way into the rent Acts, and I seek to introduce it here.
Obviously, we should control mortgages so that a mortgagee cannot enforce possession without applying to the court under the Bill if his mortgagor is unable to get possession from either controlled tenants or tenants who have the benefit of the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: I cannot advise the Committee to accept this new Clause. This is a difficult problem. I understand—I have taken advice because I have not much experience of it myself—that the present mortgage restriction arrangements under the existing Acts are satisfactory. They are necessary because rents are paid. But under the Bill the court can take into account a burden of this kind in fixing rent or mesne profits.
We think that the smooth way of doing what is required is not to introduce further regulation of this kind but, rather, to leave it as one of the circumstances

which a sensible judge would take into account when deciding what terms to arrange.

Mr. Cole: It seems to me that, both in this matter and in others, the Bill has no kind of relation to any previous rent Act. Every time we try to bring forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has done on this occasion, something which has been sacrosanct in previous legislation, we are told that it is not applicable under the Bill. Although I am on the side of the Government in wanting the Bill to work, I am beginning to wonder exactly what they are doing in the property world. This slim but rather stiletto-like Bill will cut right across the legislation of past years.
My hon. Friend has raised a point regarding the rights of a mortgagee vis-à-vis a mortgagor of a property of which possession cannot be obtained. The position is being changed. We are told that we should let matters take their course and let the judge make up his mind. That is all very fine, but let us spare a thought for the judges in these cases. We shall confront them with legislation which they will have to put into force in about the middle of January without giving them any guidance whatever. They cannot refer to previous principles of rent legislation.
I beg the Government to make sure, before we pass the Report stage and part with the Bill on Third Reading, that, without damaging the effect of the Bill and what they want to do, its terms are such that ordinary people and the judges and lawyers who will have to administer it can properly understand it. In some cases, apparently, one is supposed to look back to previous legislation; in others one should not. In some cases, the Bill will stand by itself, and in others goodness knows where it will stand. If it is important as emergency legislation, it is important enough to be drafted properly.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: What is the position if a mortgagee gives notice of repayment of his mortgage and the house happens to be occupied by someone protected by the Bill? The time runs out and the mortgagor is unable to pay because he is unable to get possession of the property and sell it. What happens? The mortgagee is entitled to take possession of the


property. Is he the owner of the property under the Bill and, therefore, prevented by Clause 1(3) from getting possession by means other than going to the court? I do not know from the wording of the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not know either. I want this cleared up. My Clause would have cleared up the point in a perfectly simple manner.

Mr. MacColl: The Bill does not alter the terms of the mortgage. It says that when the owner goes to court to deal with the tenant, the judge can take into account that there is the burden of the mortgage to be met. It deals with the rights of the tenant. It does not deal with the mortgagee.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EXPEDITIOUS HEARING.)

(1) Section 17 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act 1920 (which provides for the making of rules of procedure for purposes of that Act, and extends the jurisdiction of county courts and sheriff courts in respect of proceedings under that Act) shall have effect as if references to that Act included references to this Act; and for the purposes of that section any proceedings for the suspension of an order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling to which this Act applies shall be deemed to be proceedings under this Act.

(2) Rules of procedure as aforesaid shall be made so as to provide that, if the court is satisfied of the urgency of the proceedings, proceedings for recovery of possession of premises to which this Act applies shall be heard (upon a two days' notice to the court and to the other parties to the proceedings) in any court within the circuit of the county court judge of the court in which the proceedings would otherwise have been heard and shall take precedence over other proceedings due for hearing.—[Sir I. Hobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is meant to deal with what I regard as possibly a very serious situation. We shall put an enormous amount of additional work on county court judges, and we shall also remove from the High Court any prospect of expeditious proceedings. There are numerous cases where the situation that has developed between landlord and tenant can be very serious and ought to be dealt with in the interests of both parties, and occasionally in the interests of one party.
At present, while I do not think that it is very often followed, but it provides a useful safeguard, there is the method of applying in the High Court. I agree with the decision of the Government that all these decisions should go to the county court. I think that the local county court has much better knowledge of local conditions, and it obviates for those who live outside London—and a great many do—the necessity of employing agents or putting in affidavits before registrars of the High Court, and it provides an easy local court to which they can go. But the consequence is that one is left with a situation in which the present delays in the county court are substantial, even in London.
The average time between setting down and making application and getting a hearing is six weeks. Also, it is easy for defendants to get an adjournment. One has also to bear in mind the situation in a country district where there is a large area over which the county court judge has to travel. For instance, in north Lincolnshire the judge is in Louth only once in 13 weeks. This is the sort of delay that will be imposed on all cases, even the urgent ones.
I accept that the vast majority of cases can be reasonably dealt with by the county court in the ordinary course of its business, but I have endeavoured in the Clause to provide that where the county court is satisfied that there is a matter of urgency, there should be a special procedure by which it can be dealt with very expeditiously. I have endeavoured to deal with it, first, by saying that the power to make rules applies not only to applications for possession but those applications that are dealing with suspension orders and the variation of suspension orders, because I think it is fair that if a tenant wants to get an extension of the suspension order he already has, the rule-making power should apply to an extension in that respect.
Finally, I have suggested that it should be an application to make rules to do three things. First, there should be special procedure in cases of urgency if the court is satisfied on a preliminary application that it is an urgent matter, and if it is so satisfied, it should be possible for the application to be made on a two-day notice and it could be made


at any court on the circuit of the judge who is to hear it, and in such circumstances, the application should take precedence over all other business of the court.
I hope that the court will think that these are reasonable and sensible provisions, remembering always that they will be attracted only to those cases where the court is satisfied that the question of urgency arises.

Mr. Weitzman: This is one of the necessary and sensible suggested alterations to the Bill and I hope that the Government will do something along these lines.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I join in that and go further and say that this is one of the most important suggested alterations to the Bill, if not the most important. The purposes of this emergency Bill is to make people go through the courts instead of taking the law into their own hands. Unless there is machinery which will enable a decision to be taken within a matter of days in certain cases and weeks in others, the Bill will fail to achieve its purpose.
I do not propose now to go into the analogies which arise, but it is absolutely plain that in matters which we have not as yet discussed, in the cases not only of service occupancies and short tenancies, but almost all examples of furnished lettings, the landlord will have entered into other arrangements for letting to someone else, particularly with short tenancies. If, as he is, the tenant is encouraged to take advantage of the right to go to the courts, unless the landlord can get his application heard immediately, subsequent short tenancies, perhaps down an entire season, may collapse like a pack of cards.
The whole nub of the Bill depends upon these or other suitable arrangements to secure a very rapid hearing, particularly in areas where the tourist industry may find much of its turnover affected. Almost the essence of the Bill is in its administration and the test of its success will be the speed of execution. I take the view that it will require deputy judges to sit for this class of case and certainly the sort of machinery envisaged in the new Clause to deal with it. On the circuit system it must mean extra sessions to deal with the cases, especially in the

conurbations which, we hope, will be the only areas where the Bill will have an important impact.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not only accede to this reasonable request, but will see whether he can improve upon it to see that the utmost expedition is obtained.

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that as these proceedings draw towards their close harmony begins to reign. I can give the assurance for which the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) have asked. However, we would rather do it our own way and not by the new Clause, which has certain disadvantages. We do not ourselves think that putting it under the rent restrictions procedure is the happiest way. It could not be done without amendment, and we think that the purpose can be achieved by administrative action.
I entirely agree that, unless we can do this, the whole purpose of the Bill will be frustrated, and we therefore regard this as one of the most important parts of the Bill. I should like to say what is our estimate of the present situation on which we have to improve. According to our latest information, there is an interval of six to eight weeks between the taking out of a summons and the hearing of a case by a judge in the busy county courts of the larger towns. In the country, the average is five to seven weeks, but this is subject to such wide fluctuations that the average is highly misleading. Hearings by the registrar can be taken on average about one week earlier.
This is a situation which must be improved and we suggest the following course. It is apparently already true that under the existing county court rules a judge or registrar may transfer proceedings to another court where proceedings can more conveniently or fairly be heard. That accessibility for the tenant will have to be arranged, but we expect that the courts will be prepared to exercise this power.
That is our first suggestion for acceleration, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has also taken action. He proposes by administrative action to direct the courts to place


undefended possession actions in the list for the first sitting after the period required between the taking out of the summons and the hearing, provided that the owner satisfies the appropriate officer of the court of the need for speed. That means that undefended possession actions will be added to the list, even where that list is already full.
It is already open to judges, under Section 26 of the County Courts Act, 1959, to appoint additional courts, and that power will also be available where the owner makes out a prima facie case for speedy hearing when taking out his summons and there is no regular sitting of the court shortly after expiration of the prescribed period, which is, I understand, 14 days.
We feel that with these administrative changes the period should be reduced to about 21 days, and we believe that that is the kind of reasonable period for making this emergency Bill work. I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the new Clause, because we regard it as really unnecessary in view of the steps which the Lord Chancellor contemplates taking to accelerate hearings.

Sir J. Hobson: I am very glad to hear of the Lord Chancellor's arrangements. I am sure that everyone will welcome the fact that the average case will be heard very much more quickly, but there is still an imposed delay of 21 days. I concede that that is very reasonable, indeed, for the ordinary case, but I find great difficulty in believing that it will be sufficient for the really urgent case. There are many urgent cases, and there are certain circumstances in which possession ought to be given in a matter of some 48 hours. There are short weekly lettings that people are holding over, and cases where there is violence in the household—where landlord and tenant, living under the same roof, and cheek by jowl, and have arrived at a position which could not and ought not to be tolerated for 21 days.
The fact is that we have removed the landlord's right to take any means of self-help at all, and he may have under the same roof someone whom he is not allowed to take any steps to get rid of. but, has to tolerate a quite impossible situation when he should have possession.
I only ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Lord Chancellor, who, I am sure, will appreciate the point, whether, for the exceptional case—and I only put it on the basis of the exceptional case—it should be possible to get possession on a two-day notice.

Mr. Crossman: I shall be delighted to ask the Lord Chancellor about this.

Sir J. Hobson: On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

2.30 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret McKay: I rise to introduce myself as the new Member for Clapham and I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House for according me the privilege of making my maiden speech in this pleasant fashion. I confess that I would not voluntarily have chosen to give a maiden speech at this hour of the night. Nevertheless, I will do my best to prove to the House that a new Member can take a hard day's night in the same spirit as any of the older Members.
I wish to draw to the notice of the House what lies behind the fact that 20 million working days are lost by workers suffering accidents and scheduled industrial diseases and that the position is not improving, but is deteriorating. This is an age of discovery and invention. New materials, techniques and processes are being introduced which bring in their train new health risks of increasing complexity. Sickness absence records and field surveys all point to the fact that there are undetected and unchecked health hazards in industry. Experts advise as that about 20,000 new chemicals are introduced yearly to the industrial scene and there is no guarantee that all these chemicals are being tested


before use. In the result, thousands of workers are exposed to poisonous gases and vaporous fumes and to dangers from handling the toxic constituents of many products.
I know, for example, that within the last week or so the T.U.C. has made representations to, I believe, the Ministry of Labour concerning the dangers of the use of benzine in synthetic paint and paint strippers and that the industrial hygiene laboratory services have been seriously concerned by the fact that 2,000 known workers are exposed to dangers from benzine and other solvents. The T.U.C. and other bodies are concerned also about lead and mercury hazards. I could give a long list of diseases. I will not give them all, but I should like to refer to hazards from dust.
Medical officers of health report that in factories where they are employed—and I emphasise that there are thousands of factories which do not employ medical officers of health—they know of 5,000 workers who are exposed to the dangers of pulmonary diseases from the inhalation of dangerous dusts. There have been constant complaints about vegetable dust, particularly from dockers. There is, however, one form of dust and the dangers from it about which I shall probably—I hope not—speak with distress. I refer to the dangers from cotton dust.
How many workers' lives have been shortened by the dangers of the cotton industry? Of the lives lost, my father's was one. He was a brilliant man who was dead at the age of 29 from contracting tuberculosis from working in the spinning mills. If not, he would have been gracing this House many years ago. I am conscious that, as I speak now, I am speaking with the voice of the dead.
I sometimes wonder whose was the greater tragedy, the young and brilliant life that was lost, or the young widow left husbandless with three small children to bring them up alone in the world with no help and the tragedy of children at seeing the suffering of their mother and the lifelong hunger and struggle. It is for this reason that I have chosen this subject tonight speaking in their name, and for this subject I stand proudly on this side of the House, where they would have wished me to be.
In any event, what happened then is still happening in industry. I make a plea for the most urgent research into lung damage and chronic lung illnesses as a result of dangerous dusts in various occupations.
I could refer to a whole list of other ailments, but I will mention heat stresses and strokes, and rheumatism. Indeed, a small-scale inquiry by the National Coal Board and the National Insurance figures raise the question of the industrial origin of a great deal of suffering from rheumatism and lumbar degeneration.
Then there is the new illness which we are beginning to recognise as having an occupational origin—I have sometimes wondered whether we suffer from it in this House. It is noise stress. I have sometimes wondered how many decibels we have been registering, and whether we need an occupational hygienist to protect us. The industrial medical officers claim that in factories where they have had facilities—and I do not speak about the factories where there are no facilities—there are at least 5,000 workers who urgently require hearing tests.
Loss of hearing from industrial causes is now regarded as one of the two major causes of accidents and dangers in the factory. I would point out that in the United States industrial deafness is now scheduled as a disease which is accepted for workmen's compensation. Then there are the health hazards in commercial life of unsuitable heating, ventilation and lighting.
It was not my intention to give a list of horrors, but to point out that safeguards could be utilised. Indeed, experts claim that half the working time lost, and at least half the human distress which is suffered, could be reduced if the latest techniques of occupational hygiene were fully utilised.
I have been struck by the fact that when Members have asked what subject I am going to speak on, and I have replied, "Occupational hygiene", they have said, "Oh, yes. It has something to do with drains". Only this evening someone said to me, "What a nice subject. My wife is interested in clean food". But it has nothing to do with that, and their comments spurred me to greater efforts to explain to the House what this is. The phrase "Occupational hygiene"


is somewhat misleading. It does not really express its purpose, so perhaps I might be forgiven if I explain for a moment that the purpose of occupational hygiene is to detect and control the noxious and dangerous elements in the industrial environment which imperil health.
I urge the Ministry to do all that is possible by administrative or other means to develop occupational hygiene services in Britain. This will involve engineering and medical techniques, and the closely integrated activity of chemists and engineers, and of physicians and physicists, who are trained to inter-relate their various scientific skills, and who work in areas which are related to, but different from, the medical and safety programmes.
In countries abroad the necessity for this specialist service has been very well understood, and I propose to refer briefly to what other countries are doing in this respect, which put our country in a very unfavourable comparison.
In the United States, for example—these are the figures of Government sponsored bodies and Government financed bodies—there are 300 such institutions. In Czechoslovakia, there is one in each of the 11 regions. In Russia, the service is very widespread, and in Moscow alone there are about 400 members of the staff employed in this and the medical inspection of factories. Finland has a world-famous centre at Helsinki. In Italy, there is a chain of institutions. Yugoslavia, Canada and Australia all have highly developed services, and the new developing countries, too, are making rapid strides, often with the help of the I.L.O. and the World Health Organisation. I would mention notably Mexico, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Malaya.
Where do we stand in this country? It is true that certain private firms have developed their services. I.C.I., certain oil firms, and I believe the National Coal Board, on a small scale, have done so, but it is very difficult for the mass of our factories to provide this service because the vast majority of them are quite small. In my constituency there is no major industry and there are no large factories. Nevertheless, there are workers, and they have the same needs and the same rights to protection. But they are unable to get this, and this shows the need for a hygiene service supplied, as in

other countries, by the Government if possible, in the form of units to serve such areas as Clapham.
I know that for many years the Ministry has had an industrial health advisory committee dealing with this problem, and that it has had many reviews. What has the result been? We had three centres in this country—one connected with Newcastle University, one with Manchester University, and another at Slough, which depended on their own individual efforts or on charitable grants from the Nuffield Trust. Although we have this department at the Ministry the net result has been that Slough has been closed down, so that we are now one short even of the three former charitable bodies.
I pay tribute to the pioneers of Slough who, in the very difficult years, struggled to make enough money to set up the centre there, which has done work of lasting value and whose name became of nation-wide renown. I realise that in a maiden speech it is not very courteous to be partisan, but I grieve greatly over the fact that the previous Government could not see their way to save Slough. I pay tribute to the pioneers there, and I want to let them know that their names will not be forgotten in this House. I would mention Dr. Hickish, Dr. Challen, and the committee which did such fine educational work under the chairmanship of Mr. Bonham Carter. Now we have no Government centre, and we have two centres where we originally had three.
Is this the task of the Factory Inspectorate? Its task is to administer the law in relation to safety, welfare and health standards. I recognise that in the inspectorate there are persons concerned with industrial health techniques, but they are very thin on the ground, and there are only 400 inspectors for 25,000 factories. There is a need for strengthening the Factory Inspectorate on its own grounds, quite independently of the ground that I have put forward.
I want to say a word about the economic issues involved, as distinct from the humanitarian issues. I would remind hon. Members that we are—we hope—entering a period of industrial advancement and expansion. The 20 million days which are lost each year through industrial ill-health will undermine this


expansion. This is a priority question if we are to succeed in getting Britain going, as is our intention. Industrial ill-health is wasteful in itself. It also affects labour relations. Were it not for the lateness of the hour I could give many instances where illnesses have been mistaken for slacking, and where there have been consequent industrial disputes which might have been avoided. Industrial ill-health also puts up operating costs, increases labour turnover and affects our production programme—and it can affect our export programme and, consequently, the economic solidity of our country.
I therefore urge that the Ministry should regard this problem as too deep and vast a problem to be dealt with purely by voluntary effort. The Government should examine the question with the determination to face their responsibilities to the country and the workers. I know that within the last week or so an advisory panel has been set up to the Industrial Health Advisory Committee, and that it is to conduct another survey. My contention is that another survey is not necessary; the experts in the field know the need. Even I know that what is required is to give the kiss of life to the existing surveys and not to wait too long for the results of another one. I understand the economic position of the country and that there are priorities, but this matter is very much a priority.
If we are to build new factories, as we understand from the President of the Board of Trade we are to do on a wide scale, the factor of industrial hygiene must be taken into consideration in the design of the machines and the design of the factories. It is a matter of urgency and I therefore urge the Ministry to see what it is possible to do administratively at least to give us centres in London, where we have none, in Wales and in Scotland. If this action could be initiated we could initiate a revolution of incalculable value.
I appeal to hon. Members opposite, for I am falling victim of an occupational disease in his House, by quoting Disraeli. In 1827, not 100 yards from my constituency, he said:
The health of the people is really the foundation on which their happiness and their powers as a State depend.
It is in that spirit that I make my plea. I thank, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and

the House for the courtesy of hearing me, in a much larger audience than I ever dreamt would be present at a quarter to three in the morning. I appreciate many compliments paid to me by many hon. Friends. If the House is willing, and I am able, I shall return to this subject at a later date.

2.47 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I think that the House will agree that we have heard a truly remarkable maiden speech. It is my pleasure to express congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mrs. McKay). I am sure that a better attended House will look forward to hearing her often because of the way she addresses the House and the marked mastery that she has displayed of the subject she has chosen.
My hon. Friend has made a very powerful case. She may have underestimated what is being done, but there can be no doubt that much remains to be done in this very important field. We have from time to time discussed days lost in industry by strikes, but too little attention is paid to the much greater loss of productive effort caused in industry by ill-health which can be avoided. My hon. Friend has drawn attention this morning to a most important subject and her speech was a most able presentation of a complex topic. She was kind enough to inform me of some of the matters she would raise and I hope to be able to satisfy her that the Government are keenly alive to the need for action in this field.
In some discussions on this subject there is sometimes very understandable confusion about what is meant by an industrial hygiene service and what is meant by an industrial health service. It has been made apparent to the House that there is no confusion in the mind of my hon. Friend. An industrial health service is concerned with the employment of doctors and nurses in industry either in individual firms or by a number of firms subscribing communally to a group service.
That is an important subject, but it is not the subject we are debating now. An industrial hygiene service, about


which my hon. Friend has spoken is concerned with investigating the working environment in factories, carrying out biological tests to determine whether the health of workers is affected and advising on remedial measures.
They are available to firms on a fee basis, either to carry out a single survey, and make recommendations, or to carry out routine laboratory tests to see whether good working conditions are being maintained. There were three Services specialising in this field, all of them grant-aided by the Nuffield Foundation. It is, indeed, regrettable that the Service at Slough closed down, largely because of lack of support from industry itself.
I want to say a word or two about the closure of the Slough service. It had been hoped, with the aid of the initial grant of £20,000 from the Nuffield Foundation, that it would become self-supporting. It did, in fact, make progress and carry out some very good work, but it is discouraging to know that its income became stabilised at about £7,000 per annum, rather less than half of its expenses. Because of this there was little likelihood of its being self-supporting. At that time there appeared to be, at least to the Government of the day, no alternative but to close it down. An appeal to industry for financial support met with a very disappointing result indeed.
I should emphasise that the existing services not only at Manchester and Newcastle, but also particular services provided by universities, hospitals and research associations, are sufficient to meet existing demands. It is not a question of employers wanting tests and investigations carried out and being unable to find the existing services needed to do the job. The existing services can meet existing demands made by industry.
I recognise that the question which at once arises is not what is the demand for services, as shown by the willingness of employers to commission and pay for them. The real question, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is the extent of the need for such services in order to safeguard the health of workers. That is the main point at issue.
Here, I should like to say something about the work which the Factory Inspectorate does in this field. With

respect, I would suggest that my hon. Friend underestimated the work that is being done. There are, after all, many provisions in the Factories Act and in regulations dealing with particular industries and processes which require the maintenance of healthy working conditions. The Factory Inspectorate in its regulations for factories see to it that these requirements are observed.
The inspectorate has its own specialist branches of chemists, doctors and engineers to advise on problems requiring professional skill and laboratory services. During the course of the last year special investigations were carried out by the Chemical Branch in 541 factories and many analyses were made, including over 1,000 dust estimations.
In this connection, I want to make particular reference—and I appreciate my hon. Friend's reference to this subject—to the dangers from dust in cotton mills, byssinosis, of which both she and I have had experience during our own working lives.
Medical inspectors visited over 2,500 factories, and over 1,000 biological specimens were analysed in the medical laboratory.
I want to dispel any impression there may be that this subject is not receiving attention. It is. The question is whether the work now being done is adequate to meet the real needs, and I must say that my hon. Friend has made out a very powerful case for believing that what is being done is not adequate to meet the real needs.
My hon. Friend has said that what is needed is action and not another survey. I think that both action and more information are needed. The present work of the Factory Inspectorate and all the privately commissioned inquiries will continue, but, meanwhile, we are carrying out a special survey of a random sample of factories to discover the nature and extent of toxic hazards. The survey will be carried out by specialist teams of the Factory Inspectorate, including doctors and chemists, on lines we have been discussing with an Advisory Panel of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee, to which my hon. Friend referred. Once we know the extent of the need we can consider how it can best be met. If a need for more investigatory and advisory services is


shown, the Government will, I can assure my hon. Friend, take the necessary further action.
This is a problem which faces all industrial nations, and we can look with advantage at the experience and the practice of other countries. Of course, comparisons of national performance are not easy to make and what we are really concerned with is the end result on the factory floor. We have, however, made a particular study of American practice, about which my hon. Friend seemed very well informed, and I would like to inform the House and my hon. Friend that two senior officers of the Ministry have accepted an invitation to study American schemes of industrial hygiene services early next year.
I can only refer briefly to the important point which my hon. Friend made, that it is better to eliminate risks at the design stage than to have to take special measures to deal with them later.
This is accepted doctrine within the Factory Inspectorate, and the specialist branches do a good deal of work with the manufacturers of plant and equipment to try to achieve this end.
I am very grateful indeed to my hon. Friend for having raised this most important subject tonight. I hope I have to

some extent persuaded her that we are not by any means neglecting it at the moment, and that our intentions are to see that if there are any deficiencies, they are remedied.
I do assure the House that I shall myself, from my own experience of industrial diseases, having had to deal with them for a long number of years, take a close personal interest in these problems and that they will not be neglected.

Sir Anthony Meyer: May I take a moment or two to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Clapham (Mrs. McKay), on her very moving speech, which the few of us privileged to hear it will long remember.
I was very glad to hear her deplore the closure of the very encouraging experiment in Slough. At that time, both my predecessor, Mr. Fenner Brockway, and I, as Conservative candidate, were very sad that this should have happened. We have heard from the Minister tonight—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock.